60 114p. · 2013. 10. 24. · 25. Educational Levels of Spouses. 20. 26. Academic Majors of Spouses...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 046 872 SP 004 600

AUTHOR Brown, Laurence D.; Slater, J. MarloweTITLE The Doctorate in Education. Volume I, The Graduates.INSTITUTION American Association of Colleges for Teacher

Education, Washington, D.C.PUB DATE 60NOTE 114p.

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

EDRS Price MF-$0.65 HC-$6.58*Doctoral Degrees, Doctoral Programs, Education,*Education Majors, *Graduate Students, GraduateSurveys, Institutional Role, SocioeconomicInfluences, Student Attitudes, StudentCharacteristics, Student Employment, StudentMotivation, Student Problems

ABSTRACTAs one phase of a larger inquiry (See SP 004 601, SP

004 602, and SP 004 603) aimed ultimately at increasing the quantityand quality cf doctoral degree holders in the field of professionaleducation, a study surveyed conditions affecting pursuit of thedoctoral degree in education. Questionnaires were sent to allavailable individuals who received the Ed.D. or Ph.D. in educationbetween 1956 and 1958. Responses were received from 78.5 percent ofthe persons polled. Respondents represented 91 institutions whichaward the doctorate in education. The purpose was to develophypotheses. Chi square analysis and rank correlation were used.Tabulations were made across all items (the mass data), across majorfields, across degrees, and across institutions. Findings revealedinformation regarding circumstances ar.d events leading up to doctoralstudy, pursuit of the degree, attitudes toward selected situationsencountered during the program and period of residency, and since thedegree. Six critical factors were identified which underlieconditions affecting pursuit of the doctoral degree in education:sociological facts relative to the individual in the sample, age ofthe graduates, length of the doctoral program, financial factors, theoccupational sources of student; and the kinds of positions takenafter receipt of the doctorate, and institutional control of factorsaffecting pursuit of the degree. (Included are findings, conclusions,and suggestions for further study. SP 004 599, SP 004 600, and ED 010188 are related documents.) (JS)

THE DOCTORATE IN EDUCATION

An Inquiry into Conditions Affecting Pursuitof the Doctoral Degree in

the Field of Education

VOLUME I -- THE GRADUATES

prepared for

U.S, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION& WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCEDEXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON ORORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OFVIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECES-SARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDU-CATION POSITION OR POLICY.

The Committee on Studiesand

The Subcommittee on Faculty Personnelof

The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education

final tabulation and report preparedby

Laurence D. BrownJ. Marlowe Slater

THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

1960

00001

The American Association of Collages for Teacher Education

The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, an autonomous

department of the National Education Association, is a national voluntary associa-tion of colleges and universities organized to improve the quality of institutionalprograms of teacher education. All types of four-year institutions for higher edu-cation are represented in the present membership. These include private and

church-related liberal arts colleges, state teachers colleges, state colleges, stateuniversities, private and church-relateu universities, and municipal universities.The teacher-education programs offered by the member institutions are varied.Only one uniform theme dominates the AACTE--the dedication to ever-improving

quality in the education of teachers.

President: Henry H. Hill, president, George Peabody College for Teachers,Nashville, Tennessee

Executive Secretary: Edward C. Pomeroy

Associate Executive Secretary: H. Kenneth Barker

Associate Secretary for Research and Studies: Paul M. Allen

Office of the Association: 1201 Sixteenth St., N.W., Washington 6, D.C.

Copyright 1960 byThe American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education

Library of Congress Catalog Number: 60-11969

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS COPY-RIGHTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTEDBY

c_, giArcvic,rC-

TO ERIC AND ORGANIZATIONS OPERATINGUNDER AGREEMENTS WITH THE U.S. OFFICEOF EDUCATION. FURTHER REPRODUCTIONOUTSIDE THE ERIr SYSTEM REQUIRES PER-MISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER."

0901,2

FOREWORD

The Committee on Studies of The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education takes pridein transmitting to the membership this outstanding study of the conditions which affect the pursuit of thedoctoral degree in the field of education. This publication reflects the basic concern of AACTE institutionsfor the source of future professional leaders, and it is expected that these data will be of real benefit in theanalysis of the problem of increasing the supply of well-qualified teacher education faculty.

This study was first conceived and implemented by the late B. L. Dodds, dean of the College of Educa-tion, University of Illinois, and past chairman of the Studies Committee of the AACTE. Through his dedi-cated efforts and those of the Subcommittee chairman, Harold E. Moore, director of the School of Education,University of Denver, Denver, Colorado, the facilities and some of the personnel of these two institutionswere made available to spearhead this study. The Association is deeply indebted to the members of theSubcommittee on Faculty Personnel for Teacher Education who guided the total study. The effort andinitiative of these people, combined with the cooperation of the participating institutions and the recipientsof the doctoral degree, made the successful completion of this study possible.

Harold E. HydeChairman,Committee on Studies, 1959-60

AACTE Committee on Studies

Membership as of February 28, 1958,

at the Inception of the Study

Chairman: B. L. Dodds,* dean, College of Educa-tion, University of Illinois, Urbana

Karl W. Bigelow, professor of higher education,Teachers College, Columbia University, NewYork City

Dennis H. Cooke, director of teacher education,High Point College, High Point, North Carolina

Martelle L. Cushman, dean, College of Education,University of North Dakota, Grand Forks

Clifford E. Erickson, dean of education, MichiganState University, East Lansing

Harold E. Hyde, president, Plymouth TeachersCollege, Plymouth, New Hampshire

John E. King, president, Kansas State TeachersCollege, Emporia

J. J. Oppenheimer, chairman, Department of Educa-tion, University of Louisville, Louisville, Ken-tucky

Robert J. Schaefer, director, Graduate Institute ofEducation, Washington University, St. Louis,Missouri

Donald R. Watson, dean of the College, San DiegoState College, San Diego, California

A. John Holden, commissioner of education, StateDepartment of Education, Montpelier, Vermont

Margaret Lindsey, professor of education, TeachersCollege, Columbia University, New York City

*Deceased, March 1959

iii'00.003

AACTE Subcommittee on Faculty Personnelfor Teacher Education

Membership as of February 29, 1960

Chairman: Harold E. Moore, director, School ofEducation, University of Denver, Denver,Colorado

W. Max Chambers, president, Central State College,Edmond, Oklahoma

Raleigh W. Holmstedt, president, Indiana StateTeachers College, Terre Haute

H. Glenn Ludlow, director, Bureau of Research andMeasurement, School of Education, Indiana Uni-versity, Bloomington

J. Marlowe Slater, director of teacher placement,University of Illinois, Urbana

John E. King, president, Kansas State TeachersCollege, Emporia; liaison member from Com-mittee on Studies

Laurence D. Brown, graduate assistant, Office ofTeacher Placement, University of Illinois, Ur-bana; consultant

Donald G. Ferguson, assistant professor, School ofEducation, University of Denver, Denver, Colo-rado; consultant

John H. Russel, associate professor, School of Edu-cation, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado;consultant

PREFACE

The Graduate Phase of An Inquiry into Conditions Affecting Pursuit of theDoctoral Degree in the Field of Education was conducted under the auspices ofthe Committee on Studies of The American Association of Colleges for TeacherEducation and was directed by the Subcommittee on Faculty Personnel for TeacherEducation. Staff was provided by the College of Education, University of Illinois,Urbana, Illinois. The Institutional Phase of the Inquiry, conducted at the Univer-sity of Denver, was a related project and is reported under separate cover. Thetwo phases had many points of contact, which will be established in a third publi-cation to be released at a later date.

Laurence D. Brown, a graduatt assistant in the Office of Teacher Placement,University of Illinois, developed the questionnaire for the Graduate Phase, sum-marized the data for the preliminary report to participating institutions, made theanalyses, and wrote this report. This phase of the study was under the generaldirection of J. Marlowe Slater, acting director of the Office of Teacher Placement,University of Illinois, and a member of the AACTE Subcommittee on FacultyPersonnel for Teacher Education.

Others at the University of Illinois who made invaluable suggestions as tocontent and procedure for the study were:

B. L. Dodds, dean,* College of EducationCharles M. Allen, associate dean, College of EducationFrank H. Finch, coordinator of graduate study in educationWilliam P. McLure, director, Bureau of Educational ResearchDavid H. Gliessman, graduate student, University of Illinois, UrbanaFrancis H. Flerchinger, assistant director for research, Statistical

Service Unit, University of Illinois, UrbanaJulia P. Snyder, chief clerk, Stenographic Service, College of Education,

University of Illinois, Urbana

Important assistance was provided during every stage of the study by thestaff of the central office of AACTE and especially by Edward C. Pomeroy,executive secretary; William E. Engbretson, associate executive secretary at theoutset of the study; and Paul M. Allen, associate secretary for research andstudies during the final stages of the study.

Grateful acknowledgment is made to the 91 deans who submitted lists ofgraduates and to the 2870 respondents to the questionnaire. These were the con-tributions which made this study possible.

*Deceased J. M. Slater

Urbana, IllinoisApril 1960

iv

University of Illinois

000C 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PagePREFACE iv

CHAPTER

I. Nature and Design of the Study 1

H. The Sample Defined 3

III. The Sample Characterized 11

1V. Circumstances and Events Leading up to Doctoral Study 23

V. Pursuit of the Degree 43

VI. Attitudes Toward Selected Situations Encountered During the Program 51

VII. The Period of Residency 65

VIII. Since the Degree 73

1X. Some Comments of Respondents 77

X. Summary and Conclusions 81

APPENDIXES

A. Additional Data Concerning Respondents 89

B. Institutions Granting Bachelor's and Master's Degrees to the Respondents 99

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. PageChapter I

NATURE AND DESIGN OF THE STUDY

Chapter IITHE SAMPLE DEFINED

1. Questionnaire Return, by Institutions, in Rank Order of the Number of ListedGraduates Between September 1956 and September 1958 5

2. Year the Doctorate Was Awarded 83. Distribution of Ed.D. and Ph.D. Degrees 84. Categories into Which Major Fields Were Classified for Tabulation 85. Academic Majors, Some Discrepancies Between the Reports by Individuals

and Institutions 106. Distribution of Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s, by Major Fields 10

Chapter IIITHE SAMPLE CHARACTERIZED

7. Distribution of Ph.D. and Ed.D. Degrees Between Male and Female Respondents 138.' Distribution of Male and Female Respondents, by Mar Fields 149. Year of Birth 14

10. Year of Birth and Kind of Degree 1411. Community Background 1512. Kind of Degree, by Community Background 1513. Community Background, by Major Fields 1514. Differences in States' Ranks When Based upon Population in 1920 and When Based

upon Actual Contribution of Births to the Sample. 1615. Fathers' Occupations 1716. Distribution of Fathers' Occupations Contrasted with the Total Male Labor

Force, 1920 Census 1717. Fathers' Occupations, by Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s 1718. Fathers' Occupations, by Major Fields 18

000(15

Table of Contents (Continued) Page19. Mothers' Occupations 1820. Fathers' Educational Levels 1821. Mothers' Educational Levels 1922. Fathers' Educational Levels, by Major Fields 1923. Year of Marriage 1924. Number of Children 2025. Educational Levels of Spouses 2026. Academic Majors of Spouses Who Had Attained the Baccalaureate or a Higher Degree 2027. Level of Spouses' Education, by Major Fields, with Percentages Corrected for

Unmarried Respondents 2128. Occupations of Spouses During the Doctoral Program, with Percentages Corrected

for Unmarried Respondents 22

Chapter IVCIRCUMSTANCES AND EVENTS LEADING UP TO DOCTORAL STUDY

29. Period of Life During Which the Doctoral Degree Was First Considered,by Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s 27

30. Period of Life During Which the Doctoral Major Was First Considered,by Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s 27

31. Comparison of Periods During Which the Doctoral Degree and the Doctoral MajorWere First Considered 28

32. Individuals Who Influenced the Decision To Enter the Doctoral Program,by Levels of Importance 28

33. Influence of Spouses on the Decision To Enter the Doctoral Program, by Degree Received 2934. Influence of Former Employers on the Decision To Enter the Doctoral Program,

by Degree Received 2935. Personal Motives, by Levels of importance, in the Decision To Enter the Doctoral

Program 2936. Personal Motives in the Decision To Enter the Doctoral Program, by Items on

Which Ed.D.'s and Ph.D.'s Differed 2937. Material Factors Which Made the Doctoral Program Possible, by Levels of Importance . . 3038. Type of Secondary Schools Attended 3039. Size of Secondary School Graduating Classes 3040. Type of Institutions Granting the Baccalaureate Degree 3141. Type of Institutiohs Granting the Baccalaureate Degree to Ed.D.'s and Ph.D.'s 3142. Kinds of Control Over the Institutions Granting the Baccalaureate Degree 3143. Kinds of Control Over the Institutions Granting the Baccalaureate Degree to

Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s 3244. Undergraduate Majors 3245. Undergraduate Majors Compared with Doctoral Majors 3246. Type of Institutions Granting the Master's Degree 3347. Kinds of Control Over the Institutions Granting the Master's Degree 3348. Percent of Respondents Who Received the Bachekr's, Master's, and Doctoral

Degrees in Each of the Various Types of Institutions 3349. Percent of Respondents Who Received the Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctoral

Degrees in Institutions Under Each of the Various Kinds of Control 3450. Majors at the Master's Degree Level 3451. Preparation of a Master's Thesis 3452. Acquisition of the Sixth-Year Degree . . 3453. Change of Institution Between Degrees 3554. Change of Institution Between Degrees, by Doctoral Major 3555. Change of Institution Between Degrees, by Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s 3556. Year in Which the Baccalaureate Degree Was Received 3657. Year in Which the Master's Degree Was Received 3658. Percent of Respondents in Educational and Noneducational Positions, by Recency

of the Predoctoral Position 3659. Percent of Respondents Employed by Public Schools, Colleges, etd., by Recency

of the Predoctoral Position 3660. Degree of Influence of Positions UPOn the Decision To Enter the Doctoral

Program, by Recency of the Predoctoral Position 3761. Type of "Most Recent" Predoctoral Positions Held by Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s 3762. Type of Organization Which Employed Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s in "Most Recent"

Predoctoral,Positions 37

vi 00006

Table of Contents (Continued) Page

63. Type of "Second Most Recent" Predoctoral Positions Held by Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s 3764. Type of Organization Which Employed Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s in "Second Most

Recent" Predoctoral Positions 3865. Type of "Most Recent" Predoctoral Positions Held, by Major Fields 3866. Tyr of Organization Which Employed Respondents in "Most Recent" Predoctoral

Positions, by Major Fields 3967. Incidence of Military Service 3968. Duration of Military Service 3969. Incidence of Educational Experience While in Military Service 4070. Degree of Influence of Educational Military Experience on Decision To Enter the

Doctoral Program 4071. Factors Considered in Choice of Doctoral Institution, by Level of Importance 4072. Similarity of Departmental Philosophy to Personal Values as a Factor in Choice of

Doctoral Institution, by Level of importance to Majors in the Various Fields 4173. Reputation of Staff as a Factor in Choice of Doctoral Institution, by Level of

Importance to Majors in the Various Fields 4174. Reputation of the University as a Factor (Written in) in Choice of Doctoral Institution,

by Level of Importance to Majors in the Various Fields 4275. Chance as a Factor in the Decision To Enter a Doctoral Program 4276. Chance as a Factor in Choice of Doctoral Institution 42

Chapter VPURSUIT OF THE DEGREE

77. Months Required To Complete Language Requirements 4578. Months Spent on Thesis 4579. Months Spent in Residence 4680. Months Spent on Total Program 4681. Cost of the Dissertation 4782. Dissertation Costs for Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s 4783. Methods of Financing the Dissertation 4784. Organizations Which Helped Finance the Dissertation 4885. Incidence of Critical Periods 4886. Causes of Critical Periods 4887. Incidence of Near-Critical Periods 4888. Causes of Near-Critical Periods 4989. Incidence of Distracting Factors 4990. Sources of Distraction 4991. Individuals Who Encouraged Doctoral Study 50

Chapter VIATTITUDES TOWARD SELECTED SITUATIONS ENCOUNTERED DURING THE PROGRAM

92. Completeness of Initial Interviews, as Viewed by Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s 5393. Appropriateness of Course Work, as Viewed by Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s 5394. Appropriateness of Course Work, as Viewed by the Various Majors 5495. Balance of Course Work, as Viewed by Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s 5496. Balance of Course Work, as Viewed by the Various Majors 5597. Value of Languages, as Viewed by Those Who Took Them 5598. Value of Languages, as Viewed by Those Who Did Not Take Them 5599. Value of Statistics Requirement, as Viewed by Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s 56

100. Value of Statistics Requirement, as Viewed by the Various Majors 56101. Extent to Which Student Interaction" Was Encouraged, as Viewed by Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s . 57102. Value Assigneu to Student Interaction 57103. Extent to Which Student Interaction Was Encouraged, as Viewed by

the Various Majors 57104. Value of Student Interaction, as Viewed by the Various Majors 58105. Extent to Which Student-Faculty Interaction Was Encouraged, as Viewed by Ph.D.'s

and Ed.D.'s 58106. Value Assigned to Student-Faculty Interaction 59107. Extent to Which Student-Faculty Interaction Was Encouraged, as

Viewed by the Various Majors . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . 59

MONvii


108. Value of Student-Faculty Interaction, as Viewed by the Various Majors 60109. Influence of Assistantships Upon Choice of Doctoral Major, as Viewed by Ph.D.'s

and Ed.D.'s 60110. Value of Assistantships, as Viewed by Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s 61111. Value of Assistantships, as Viewed by the Various Majors 61112. Usefulness of Institutional Advice and Counseling 62113. Usefulness of Institutional Advice and Counseling, as Viewed by the Various Majors . 62114. Amount of Freedom and Self-Direction Permitted 63115. Amount of Freedom and Self-Direction Permitted, as Viewed by the Various Majors 63116. Institutional Co-operation on Thesis, as Viewed by Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s 64117. Adequacy of Library for Thesis Work 64118. Availability of Facilities for Thesis Work, as Viewed by Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s 64

Chapter VIITHE PERIOD OF RESIDENCY

119. Sources of Finance During Residency, by Level of Importance 66120. Scholarships, Fellowships, and Other Awards as Financial Sources, by Level of

Importance for Major Fields 67121. Assistantships as a Source of Finance During Residency, by Level of Importance

for Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s 67122. Assistantships as a Source of Finance During Residency, by Level of Importance

for Major Fields 67123. Leave With Pay as a Source of Finance During Residency, by Level of Importance

for Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s 68124. The "GI Bill" as a Source of Finance During Residency, by Level of Importance

for Major Fields 68125. Savings as a Source of Finance During Residency, by Level of Importance

for Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s 68126. Teaching Outside the University as a Source of Finance During Residency, by

Level of Importance for Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s 68127. Other Work Outside the University as a Source of Finance During Residency,

by Level of Importance for Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s 69128. Sources of Scholarships, Fellowships, and Other Awards 69129. Organizations Granting Leave 69130. Lending Agencies for Doctoral Work 70131. Duties of Assistants 70132. Incidence of Teaching Assistantships, by Major Fields 70133. Incidence of Research Assistantships, by Major Fields 70134. Incidence of Guidance or Counseling Assistantships, by Major Fields 71135. Incidence of Assistantships Involving Supervision of Student Teaching, by Major Fields 71136. Types of Housing Used While in Residence 71137. Incidence of Housing Problems 71138. Causes of Housing Problems 72139. Number of Persons Housed While in Residence 72140. Method Used to Pay Tuition and Fees, by Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s 72141. Sources of Aid, Other than University, in Payment of Tuition and Fees 72

Chapter VIIISINCE THE DEGREE

142. Types of Positions Held by Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s During the Academic Year 1958-59 74143. Types of Organizations Employing Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s for the Academic Year 1958-59 . 74144. Types of Positions Held by the Various Majors During the Academic Year 1958-59 75145. Types of Organizations Employing the Various. Majors for the Academic Year 1958-59 . 75146. Incidence of Involvement in Teacher Education, 1958-59 76147. Incidence of Involvement in Teacher Education, 1958-59, by Major Fields 76148. Sources of Assistance in Obtaining Positions 76

Chapter IXSOME COMMENTS OF THE RESPONDENTS

149. Graduates Wishing To Be Informed of the Completed Study 80

viii 00008


Chapter X

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

TABLE APPENDIX AADDITIONAL DATA CONCERNING RESPONDENTS

A Number of Children of Respondents, by Major Fields 91B. Spouses' Education, by Major Fields 92C. Original Distribution of Respondents, by Major Fields 93D. Most Recent Predoctoral Position, by Occupational Group 93E. Most Recent Predoctoral Position, by Type of Employing Organization 93F. Most Recent Predoctoral Position, by Number of Years Held 94G. Most Recent Predoctoral Position, by Degree of Influence on Doctoral Study 94H. Second Most Recent Predoctoral Position, by Occupational Group 94I. Second Most Recent Predoctoral Position, by Type of Employing Organization 94J. Second Most Recent Predoctoral Position, by Number of Years Held 94K. Second Most Recent Predoctoral Position, by Degree of Influence on Doctoral Study 94L. Third Most Recent Predoctoral Position, by Occupational Group 95M. Third Most Recent Predoctoral Position, by Type of Employing Organization 95N. Third Most Recent Predoctoral Position, by Number of Years Held 950. Third Most Recent Predoctoral Position, by Degree of Influence on Doctoral Study 95P. Fourth Most Recent Predoctoral Position, by Occupational Group 95Q. Fourth Most Recent Predoctoral Position, by Type of Employing Organization 95R. Fourth Most Recent Predoctoral Position, by Number of Years Held 96S. Fourth Most Recent Predoctoral Position, by Degree of Influence on Doctoral Study 96

T. Type of "Second Most Recent" Predoctoral Position, by Major Fields 96U. Type of Organization which Employed Respondents in "Second Most Recent"

Predoctoral Positions, by Major Fields 96V. Reputation of Department as a Factor in the Choice of Doctoral Institutions,

by Major Fields 97W. Type of Positions Held During the Academic Year 1957-58 97X. Organizations Employing Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s During the Academic Year 1957-58 97Y. Incidence of Involvement in Teacher Education During the Academic Year 1957-58 97

APPENDIX BINSTITUTIONS GRANTING BACHELOR'S AND MASTER'S DEGREES

TO THE RESPONDENTS

A. Institutions Granting Bachelor's Degrees to the Respondents 101B. Institutions Granting Master's Degrees to the Respondents 107

00009

Chapter I

NATURE AND DESIGN OF 'THE STUDY

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Early in 1958, the Committee on Studies of theAmerican Association of Colleges for Teacher Edu-cation approved a study conceived by the late DeanB. L. Dodds, University of Illinois. This proposal foran analysis of conditions affecting the pursuit of thedoctoral degree in education was referred for designand action to the Subcommittee on Faculty Personnelfor Teacher Education under the chairmanship ofHarold E. Moore, director, School of Education, Uni-versity of Denver. The subcommittee suggested thattwo related surveys be conducted by means of ques-tionnaires: one to be completed by recipients ofdoctoral degrees in education and one to be com-pleted by institutions granting those degrees.

The portion of the study dealing with graduateswas undertaken by the University of Illinois and ispresented here as Volume I. The institutional por-tion of the study was prepared by the University ofDenver as Volume II. Although the total inquiryremains a joint project, the two portions have beendeveloped and conducted relatively independently ofone another. A report which constitutes a synthesisof major points in the Illinois and Denver studieswill be the final goal of the total project and issuedas the third volume. To facilitate this task, thepresent report emphasizes possible points of contactwith the Denver portion of the study.

Inspiration for the study stems directly fromthe growing realization that the annual production ofdoctoral graduates in the field of education falls farshort of the annual needs for teachers and otherprofessional workers at this degree level. Further-more, projection data indicate that the situation maydeteriorate rather than improve.

The ultimate goal, then, is to increase the quan-tity and quality of doctoral degree holders in thefield of professional education. It is believed thatan analysis of the factors and conditions surroundingthe pursuit of the doctoral degree in education willbring to light some of the more critical features ofthe process and permit the formulation of plansaimed toward their control.

METHOD OF THE STUDY -- OUTLINED

In order to implement the above-mentionedaims, it was decided to

1. Develop an instrument in the form of a ques-tionnaire for the purpose of gathering data felt to bepertinent to the conditions affecting graduate studyat the doctoral level in the field of education;

2. Select a representative sample of recipientsof the doctoral degree in eduation;

3. Seek co-operation of institutions conferringdoctoral degrees, requesting names and addressesof graduates so as to obtain the maximum returnfrom the specified population;

4. Contact the individuals and request their co-operation in obtaining the relevant data;

5. Tabulate and analyze the data and seek factorsthat appear to be critical in the pursuit of the doc-toral degree; and

6. Report the results with emphasis on thecritical factors found. This report represents thesixth step of the study.

METHOD OF THE STUDY--DESCRIPTION

The questionnaire was developed at the Univer-sity of Illinois in the summer of 1958 in accordancewith an outline developed by the AACTE Subcommit-tee on Faculty Personnel. One portion of the ques-tionnaire consisted of a series of items requestingsuch objective information as personal data, employ-ment and educational background, dates, and costs.The remainder of the questionnaire consisted ofitems designed to obtain perceptions and attitudesof the individuals relative to certain factors and con-ditions which were faced during their doctoral pro-grams. The items were semistructured in form;that is, certain standard response categories wereincluded but were accompanied also by open cate-gories which the respondents were strongly en-couraged to use. This procedure was felt to combinethe advantages of ease of response and efficientcoding of rigidly structured items with the latitudeand depth of response which can come from open-end items.

In addition to the questionnaire, a supplementaryform was designed which requested information aboutacademic loads, university-sponsored work experi-ences, financial sources, and housing as plottedacross time; that is, the pattern and sequence ofevents and conditions were sought. However, be-cause of the effort required to complete both forms,the supplementary form was sent only to everytenth individual in the sample.

The structure and content of the instrumentswere approved at a meeting of the subcommittee inKansas City, Missouri, on June 30, 1958. Also atthis meeting, the population was defined specificallyas all those individuals who had received the Ph.D.or Ed.D. degree in the United Ststes in the field of

2

education between September 1956 and September1958. Further, it was determined by what meansthe institutions and their graduates were to be con-tawd (see step 3, above).

The Central Office, AACTE, distributed thequestionnaires in accordance with these formulatedplans and .3ubsequently forwarded the completedquestionnair -.< to the University of Illinois foranalysis.

The questionnaires were coded for IBM tabula-tion by a team of eight individuals under the closesupervision of Laurence D. Brown. These eightpersons were thoroughly instructed about the contentand purpose of the questionnaire and the coding sys-tem used. All decisions, c9ncerning the coding ofambiguous or vague responses were made by thesupervisor. For each questionnaire, the coding

_,__ss required approximately 20 to 25 minutesand four IBM cards.

The data were tabulated at the University ofIllinois Statistical Service Unit in four separatetabulations. First, the mass data were tabulatedgiving the totals and percents for all persons on allitems. Second, the data of each institution weretabulated on all items. Third, the data were splitaccording to degree received (Ed.D. or Ph.D.) andtabulated on a portion of the items with the resultssubjected to chi-square analysis. Fourth, the datawere tabulated on a portion of the items across 15major field classifications. Fifth, the data obtainedfrom the supplementary form, which had been in-cluded in a fraction of the questionnaires, weretabulated manually.

The only statistical procedures used were thechi-square analysis meutioned above and a numberof manually calculated rank order correlations on thedata tabulated across institutions. Without furtherreference to the statistical treatments used, thereader should realize that whenever Ph.D. andEd.D. degrees are reported as independent, a chi-square analysis has been used; and, all correlationsreported are rank correlations. The decision tosubject certain items to statistical analysis wasarbitrary. Whenever the data seemed to suggestdifferences or relationships, statistical treatmentwas used.

NATURE OF THE STUDY

This study attempts simply to report the find-ings, but a number of restrictions or cautions shouldbe kept in mind by the reader. The study was notmeant to be evaluative. It does not attempt to eval-uate institutions or individuals. In fact, it is com-mitted to a policy of not revealing the data by spe-cific institutions or individuals. The study is de-scriptive rather than evaluative, and normativerather than experimental. It is a field study whichattempts to reveal some characteristics of a definedgroup of individuals.

The reader should also be reminded that manyinterpretations made on the basis of these data willbe highly speculative--in the nature of hypothesesrather than conclusions. It may seem at times thatthe interpretations are poorly justified or incorrect.This is the nature of hypotheses. However, evenincorrect hypotheses may be thought-provoking.

00011

Chapter II

THE SAMPLE DEFINEDOn July 30, 1958, a letter was sent to institu-

tions thought to have conferred the doctoral degreein the field of education between September 1956 andSeptember 1958. Each institution was asked to sub-mit the names, addresses, and major fields of allgraduates whose degrees were conferred within thespecified time limits. The response to this requestwas excellent. Among 92 schools granting the degreeduring this period, only one declined to assist in thestudy. The sample population, therefore, consistsof very nearly 100 percent of the graduates duringthis two-year period.

The lists from each of the universities yieldeda total of 3375 individuals. Of this total, however,5 were deceased at the time of the listing, and 14could not be located by trace letters to all availablesources. On October 13, 1958, the questionnaires,one-tenth of which contained supplementary forms,were mailed to the revised total of 3356 individuals.

The response was good. In the first five weeks,approximately 65 percent had returned completedquestionnaires. On November 21, 1958, a follow-upletter was sent to those not yet responding, and onDecember 19, 1958, a final follow-up letter contain-ing another blank questionnaire was mailed. Theofficial cut-off date for inclusion in the tabulationwas March 4, 1959.

The original sample and the questionnaire re-turns may be broken down as follows:

Number of individuals in originalsample--the grand total of all listsprovided by the universities &375

Numi.4:Ir of deceased individuals onoriginal lists . . . . . . . . 5

Number of individuals on original listswhose addresses were unavailableand unattainable . . . . . . ... . .. . . 14

Number of individuals on original listsfound to have received the degreeoutside the specified time limits(approximately) . . . . . . ...... . . 119

Number of individuals in the.

revisedsample total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3237

Number of questionnaires returned.

2870Number of dead letters and refusals to

participate' . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . 189Number of respOnses after cut-off date 20Number of responses indicating receipt

of degree outside specified timelimits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

Number of usable responses t. . . . .

. 119

. 2542

A/Tables are placed at the ends of the chapters.

The percentage of returns of the supplementaryforms was somewhat less than that of the question-naires. Since the form was sent to every tenth per-son, the expected number of usable returns was 254.The number actually returned in usable form was229.

As indicated in the sample breakdown above, anumber of returns had to be removed. Respondentsand institutions often disagreed as to the date thedegree was granted. It appears that-individuals andinstitutions use a different point of reference on thismatter. For example, in response to the question,"When was your degree conferred?" many individ-uals gave the month and year their work was com-pleted, while the institutions reported the commence-ment date on which the degree was conferred.Unfortunately, this introduced error into the study.To minimize this, it was decided to exclude allquestionnaires in which the degree date was listedby the respondent as being prior to September 1956or after September 1958. Under these criteria, 119questionnaires needed to be removed. The distribu-tion of respondents, by year of degree, is presentedin Table la/

A summary of the responses by institutions,together with the percentage of returns from eachinstitution, is give a in Table 1. The percentage ofreturns in general was good, and the variation be-tween schools was relatively small. Only one majorinstitution fell below a 60-percent return, and severalreached 100 percent. The poorest return was 30percent from an institution contributing only 10 in-dividuals to the sample. Table 1 further indicatesthat the great majority of doctoral degree recipientscame from relatively few universities. If the list ofparticipating institutions is divided into two groups(a) those contributing 20 or more individuals to theworking sample, and (b) those contributing less than20, the former group represents slightly more than40 percent of the institutions, but it contributed over85 percent of the individuals to the sample. The twomost productive institutions alone contributed over25 percent of the sample population.

The reader 'should be reminded again that thedata have been tabulated in several ways. First,the data from all institutions were tabulated overall items--the mass data Second, a selected numberof items were tabulated according to degree re-ceived--Ph.D. or Ed.D. Third, all data were tabu-lated across Institutions. Fourth, selected itemswere tabulated across major fields. Fifth, somedata were tabulated across a time dimension--thesupplementary form. If for a given item all fivetabulations were involved, interpretation is made onthe basis of all five. If no mention is made of amethod of tabulation, the 'reader may assume thatno such tabulation was made on that item.

00012

4

The findings regarding the awarding of Ed.D.and Ph.D. degrees were interesting. The Ed.D. wasawarded to 1677 individuals; the Ph.D. to 865 in-dividuals --a ratio of two to one (see Table 3). Theseover-all figures, however, obscure the fact thatrelatively few institutions grant Ed.D.'s and Ph.D.'sin this proportion. In general, either one degree orthe other is emphasized in a given institution. Infact, 44 institutions granted one degree to the exclu-sion of the other, while another 22 institutions grantedone degree more frequently than the other in a ratioexceeding 85 to IS& Some institutions are re-stricted to the granting of a single doctoral degree.However, when both degrees were offered, eitherformal policy or some kind of informal pressureseemed to operate to direct candidates toward onedegree to the exclusion of the other. These data donot support assumptions that students have freedomof choice in degree selection.

The major fields or areas of specialization werewidely varied. To do justice to the variety, it wasnecessary to use 80 distinct categories in codingthe specialties (see Appendix A, Table C). It wouldseem as if some colleges of education operate ahighly flexible program and co-operate with manyother departments of the university in order topermit the design of specialized individual programs.While, in general, this kind of policy may be desir-able, it admits individuals into the program who haveno interest in the field of education per se. Evidenceof this was found in questionnaires returned byindividuals refusing to participate. For example,consider these notes: "I am not in the field of edu-cation nor did I at any time consider my under-graduate or graduate work to be leading towardeducational work..." or "...no longer in teachingfield and my degree was in clinical psychology."Yet the doctorates held by these individuals wer'conferred through departments of education. This istrue of those who listed their majors as psychologyor clinical psychology. As will be noted later in thereport, majors in clinical psychology constituted adistinct group which deviated from the "average"pattern in nearly every respect.

The largest single major area subgroup (i.e.,major field) was school administration, which con-stituted 22.9 percent of the total group. Followingthis was educational psychology with. 5.9 percent,eleine: tary education with 5.1 percent, guidance with4.8 percent, and secondary education with 3.9 per-cent In order to discuss major fields withoutreferring to. 80 different specialties, 15 categorieswere defined in which could be included 56 of themajor areas. This procedure made it possible toplace 82.2 percent, or 2089 individuals, in these 15categories which hereafter will be referred to asmajor fields (see Table 4 for classification).

Major field might seem an objective kind ofthing, but it became apparent while tabulating thedata that the major field, as listed by the respondent,was more a perception of self than a divisional nameused by some department of education. To checkthis observation, the major field reported for eachgraduate by the institution was compared with themajor field listed by each respondent. Some of theresults are interesting. According to the institu-tional reports, 186 persons majored in educationalpsychology, but only 149 individuals listed themselvesas having majored in this area; 140 persons majoredin secondary education, but only 99 listed them-selves as having majored in this area. On the otherhand, only 56 individuals majored in clinical psy-chology, but 98 respondents listed themselves ashaving majored in clinical i,sychology. The directionof change seemed to be away from areas whichmight be termed "professional education" into more"academic" areas. For example, the secondaryeducation majors listed themselves in social studiesor some other subject field, and the educationalpsychologists and some guidance majors perceivedthemselves as psychologists. A summary of themajor discrepancies between institutional listingand self-perception is presented in Table 5.

The major fields showed definite trends towardone degree or the other (see Table 6). These dif-ferences become quite apparent if one establishesnorms on the basis of total Ed.D.'s and Ph.D.'sawarded, as reported in Table 3. For example, theexpected percent of Ed.D. recipients was 66, but theactual totals for certain areas were as follows:school administration, 85.8 percent; secondary edu-cation, 81.8 percent; curriculum, 80.9 percent; ele-mentary education, 76.9 percent. We see similardeviations for Ph.D.'s. The expected percent ofrecipients was 34, but actual totals were as follows:clinical psychology, 87.8 percent; educational psy-chology, 76.5 percent; social foundations, 57.1 per-cent; mathematics or science education, 48.1 per-cent. These data seem to indicate that, in general,the Ed.D. degree is being used as it was designed,that is, as a professional degree for the practitionersin the field of education. Many of the exceptions canbe attributed to institutions which grant only onedegree, or place a strong emphasis on one degreeat the expense of the other.

Institutions apparently vary markedly as to whichmajor fields are offered or emphasized. For in-stance, in the 38 highest producing institutions, thenumber of graduates who majored in administrationranged from 57.6 percent to 1.7 percent of the total.If the lowest producing institutions had been included,the range would have been from 100 percent to 0percent. The same is true in other of the morecommon specialties.

I/Since this Inquiry is committed to a policy of preserving institutional anonymity, certain data arepresented fOr ,which no tables appear. This denies the reader the opportunity to develop his own interpre-tation. However, such findings will be presented because of their value in establishing points of contact withthe institutional phase; of the study.

00013

TA

BL

E 1

.--Q

UE

STIO

NN

AIR

E R

ET

UR

N, B

Y I

NST

ITU

TIO

NS,

IN

RA

NK

OR

DE

R O

F T

HE

NU

MB

ER

OF

LIS

TE

D G

RA

DU

AT

ES

BE

TW

EE

N S

EPT

EM

BE

R 1

956

AN

D S

EPT

EM

BE

R 1

958

Ron

kIn

stitu

t! O

n

,-

Tea

cher

s C

olle

ge, C

olum

bia

Uni

vers

ityN

ew Y

ork

Uni

vers

iiy -

Indi

ana

Uni

iferii

ty,

Sta

nfor

d U

nive

rs!

Uni

vers

ity-o

f Sou

ther

n C

alifo

rnia

.-.

'

6P

enns

ylvd

nia

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

': 7

Ohi

o S

tate

Uni

vers

ityU

nive

rsity

of

Mic

higa

n'

Har

vard

Uni

vers

ity10

Geo

rge'

Pea

body

Col

lege

for

Tea

cher

s

11.5

Uni

vers

ity o

f Min

neso

ta11

.5U

nive

rsity

of P

ittsb

urgh

13U

nive

rsity

of T

exas

14U

nive

rsity

of I

llino

is15

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity -

16U

nive

rsity

of

Wis

cons

in=

17.5

Col

orad

o; S

tate

Col

lege

=17

.5St

ate

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

wa

e....

99.5

Uni

vers

ityof

. Okl

ahom

a"1

95

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

4402

1U

nive

rsity

of N

ebra

ska

22M

ichi

gan

Stat

e U

nive

rsity (B

23.5

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a (B

erke

ley)

23.5

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

isso

uri

25.5

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

enve

r

25.5

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a (L

os A

ngel

es)

27U

nive

rsity

of C

hica

go28

Syr

acus

e U

nive

rsity

29U

nive

rsity

of P

enns

ylva

nia

30U

nive

rsity

of C

olor

ado

No.

of

degr

ees

liste

d by

inst

itutio

nD

ecea

sed

Add

ress

unkn

own

No.

of

acce

ssib

lede

gree

hold

ers

Deg

ree

rece

ived

outs

ide

spec

ified

perio

dE

ffect

ive

sam

ple

Tot

alta

bula

ted

Per

cent

of

effe

ctiv

esa

mpl

eta

bula

ted

34

56

78

910

584

......

584

1457

041

973

.5%

305

......

305

430

122

273

.815

6...

156

2413

277

58.3

105

......

105

310

275

73.5

99...

992

9777

79.4

89...

...89

8956

62.9

82"

...82

8257

69.6

771

...76

175

5978

.776

......

7676

5775

.075

......

7575

6080

.0

65...

....

6565

5889

.265

1...

6464

5789

.163 59

...... ..2

63 59''2

63 5748 50

76.2

87.7

57...

5555

4785

.5

5454

1143

3581

.453

53...

5348

90.6

5353

350

4692

.051

51...

5139

76.5

511

5014

3630

83.3

5050

149

4591

.849

49;

4946

93.9

4544

4437

84.1

4545

4537

82.2

4242

4233

78.6

422

4040

40

100.0

41I

COO

40

,..

4029

72.5

40...

4040

3690

.037

...37

1126

2284

.635

...35

3533

94.3

TA

BLE

1.-

-QU

ES

TIO

NN

AIR

E R

ET

UR

N, B

Y IN

ST

ITU

TIO

NS

, IN

RA

NK

OR

DE

R O

F T

HE

NU

MB

ER

OF

LIS

TE

D G

RA

DU

AT

ES

BE

TW

EE

N S

EP

TE

MB

ER

195

6 A

ND

SE

PT

EM

BE

R 1

958

(Con

tinue

d)

Ran

k!

Inst

itutio

h':

No.

of

degr

ees

liste

d by

inst

itutio

nD

ecea

sed

Add

ress

unkn

own

No.

of

acce

ssib

lede

gree

hold

ers

Deg

ree

rece

ived

outs

ide

spec

ified

perio

dE

ffect

ive

sam

ple

Tot

alta

bula

ted

Per

cent

of

effe

ctiv

esa

mpl

eta

bula

ted

12

34

56

78

910

31U

nive

rsity

of O

rego

n33

334

29

2586

.2%

33 '

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity -

3030

2023

76.7

33'

Uni

vers

ity' o

f Con

nect

icut

3030

..330

2583

.333

Uni

vers

ity o

f Nor

th C

arol

ina

3030

2722

81.5

35un

hvi

sity

of m

oryl

and

2929

128

2175

.0-

.

36U

nive

rsity

of K

ansa

s28

000

226

...26

2284

.637

For

dham

Uni

vers

ity26

000

26...

2619

73.1

-38.

5W

ayne

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

24004,

.24

.24

2291

.738

.5U

nive

rsity

of H

oust

on24

...24

i23

1878

.3740

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ten

ness

ee23

23...

2323

100.

0

41C

orne

ll U

nive

rsity

2222

2212

54.5

43O

klah

oma

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

2121

2016

80.0

43U

nive

rsity

of B

uffa

lo21

219

1916

84.2

43R

utge

rs U

nive

rsity

2121

2014

70.0

45C

atho

lic U

nive

rsity

of A

mer

ica

2020

060

2010

50.0

46U

nive

nity

of A

rkan

sas

1800

02

1615

1510

0.0

47.5

Uni

vers

ity o

f Virg

inia

1600

016

1614

87.5

47.5

Uni

vers

ity o

f Flo

rida

16SO

.16

0.6

1616

100.

049

Flo

rida

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

1500

015

000

1510

66.7

50T

exas

Wom

ah's

Uni

veni

ty14

000

1400

014

1285

.7

54.5

Aub

urn.

Uni

vers

ity12

000

1200

012

1191

.754

.554

.5Lo

uisi

ana

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Wes

tern

Res

erve

Uni

vers

ity12 12

000

000

-212 10

000

000

12 109 10

75.0

100.

054

.5T

exas

Tec

hnol

ogic

al C

olle

ge12

SOO

000

1212

1191

.754

.5U

nive

rsity

of W

yom

ing

1200

000

012

1212

100.

0

54.5

Uni

vem

ity o

f Ala

bam

a12

1O

0011

110

330

.058

,5U

nive

rsity

of M

issi

ssip

pi11

1111

1110

0.0

58.5

Ore

gon

Sta

te C

olle

ge -

1111

109

90.0

60.5

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ken

tuck

y10

99

910

0.0

60.5

Uni

vers

ity o

f Nor

th D

akot

a10

1010

1010

0.0

64U

nive

rsity

of U

tah

99

95

55.6

64Lo

yola

Uni

vers

By

(Chi

cago

)9

64

66.7

64P

urdu

e U

nive

rsity

99

98

88.9

64S

aint

Lou

is U

nive

rsity

99

44

100.

064

Nor

th T

exas

Sta

te C

olle

ge9

99

777

.8

Cr,

TA

BLE

1.-

-QU

ES

TIO

NN

AIR

E R

ET

UR

N, B

Y IN

ST

ITU

TIO

NS

,IN

RA

NK

OR

DE

R O

F T

HE

NU

MB

ER

OF

LIS

TE

D G

RA

DU

AT

ES

BE

TW

EE

N S

EP

TE

MB

ER

1956

AN

D S

EP

TE

MB

ER

195

8(Continued)

Ron

kIn

stitu

tion

No.

of

No.

of

Deg

ree

rece

ived

Per

cent

of

degr

ees

acce

ssib

leou

tsid

eef

fect

ive

liste

d by

Add

ress

degr

eesp

ecifi

edE

ffect

ive

Tot

alsa

mpl

e

inst

itutio

nD

ecea

sed

unkn

own

hold

ers

perio

dsa

mpl

eta

bula

ted

tabu

late

d

1

68 68 68 71.5

71.5

77.5

71.5

74.5

,74.

577

.5

77.5

vwr:

' 77.

5

81.5

81.5

81.5

81.5

84.5

84.5

88.5

88.5

88.5

88.5

88.5

88.5

23

45

67

89

10

Was

hing

ton

Uni

vers

ity (

Sai

nt L

ouis

)Y

eshi

va U

nive

rsity

8 88 8

17 8

6 685.7,6

75.0

low

a S

tate

Uni

v. o

f Sci

ence

and

Tec

hnol

ogy

88

77

100.0

Uni

vers

ity o

f Geo

rgia

77

OO

76

85.7

Geo

rge

Was

hing

ton

Uni

vers

ity7

77

7100.0

John

s H

opki

ns U

nive

rsity

77

25

480.0

Duk

e U

nive

rsity

77

75

71.4

Uni

vers

ity o

f Cin

cinn

ati

55

o4

80.0

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tul

sa5

55

240.0

Ariz

ona.

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

4'0

41

33

100.0

Cla

rem

ont G

radu

ate

Sch

ool

44

43

75.0

Spr

ingf

ield

Col

lege

44

OID

O4

375.0

Bay

lor

Uni

vers

ity4

40.

44

100.0

Col

lege

of t

he P

acifi

c3

33

3100.0

Bra

dley

Uni

vers

i3

33

3100.0

Uta

h. S

tate

Uni

vers

ity3

3.0

.3

266.7

Wes

t Virg

inia

Uni

vers

ity3

300

03

310

0.0

Uni

vers

ity o

f Not

re D

ame

22

.00

22

100.

0

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sou

th C

arol

ina

22

22

100.

0

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ariz

ona

11

110

0.0

Rad

cliff

e C

olle

ge1

....

1...

11

100.0

Mon

tana

Sta

te C

olle

ge1

..1

..1

1100.0

Mon

tana

5ta

te U

nive

rsity

1..

...1

..1

00.0

St.

John

's U

nive

rsity

(B

rook

lyn)

1..

1..

10

0.0

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Col

lege

(D

urha

m)

1..

1..

11

100.0

Tot

al3375

514

3356

119

3237

2542

78.5%

NO

TE

: The

dis

crep

anci

es b

etw

een

the

abov

e ta

ble

and

Tab

le 9

, Vol

ume

II, c

an b

e ac

coun

ted

for

by th

e di

ffere

nces

rep

orte

din

the

orig

inal

dat

a. Q

uest

ionn

aire

s co

verin

gea

ch

of th

e tw

o ph

ases

of t

he s

tudy

wer

e se

nt o

n di

ffere

nt d

ates

dire

ctly

toin

stitu

tions

con

ferr

ing

doct

oral

deg

rees

in e

duca

tion.

The

two

tabl

es in

dica

te th

at s

omet

imes

dat

a

prov

ided

by

an in

stitu

tion

for

each

of t

he p

hase

s w

ere

not a

lway

sin

agr

eem

ent.

8

TABLE 2.--YEAR THE DOCTORATE WAS AWARDED

Year Number Percent

1 2 3

1956 224 8.8%

1957 1143 45.01958 1167 45.91959 5a 0.2Uncertain 3 0.1

Total 2542 100.0%

aThese 5 individuals completed requirements for thedegree within the time specified in the study. However, dueto scheduling of commencement exercises the degrees werenot officially conferred until 1959.

TABLE 3.--DISTRIBUTION OF ED.D. AND PH.ID. DEGREES

Degree Number Percent

1 2 3

Ed.D. 1677 66.0%Ph.D 865 34.0

Total 2542 100.0%

TABLE 4.--CATEGORIES INTO WHICH MAJOR FIELDSWERE CLASSIFIED FOR TABULATION

Major Field categories Number

1 2

1. Special educationAdministration of special education 6Reading 10School psychology 3

Special education 27Speech pathology 4

Total 50

2. AdministrationElementary 23General 581

Secondary 17

Total 621

3. CurriculumCurriculum and supervision 24Curriculum and teaching 43Elementary . . . . . .,-. . . . . .... . . . . 7

General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Tiatal: . . : 115

PhysicalleduCation -.

AdMinistration of physical educatiOn . . . . . . . 14

Caniiiing. ".

General::: . . .- .

. . .....

270

Health'eduication: 18

Safety education 3

Total . .. . . . . . 107

00017

TABLE 4. -- CATEGORIES INTO WHICH MAJOR FIELDSWERE CLASSIFIED FOR TABULATION (Continued)

Major Field categories Number

1 2

5. Practical artsAgriculture education 8Business education 46Home economics 24Industrial arts 33Nursing education 4Nutrition 2Vocational education 11

Total 128

6. Social foundationsHistory and philosophy of education 21History of education 13Philosophy of education 29

Total 63

7. Subject areasAnthropology 2Art education 13Dramatic arts 5English 20Fine arts 10Foreign language 2Language arts 7Music education 63Social studies 34Speech 8

Total 164

8. Mathematics or science educationMathematics education 26Science education 51

Total 77

9. Educational psychology 149

10. Secondary education 99

11. Elementary education 130

12. Higher education 71

13. GuidanceGeneral. . . . . . . . . 121Guidance and counseling 52

Total 173

14. Clinical psychologyCounseling . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ...... . 4Counseling psychology. . . . . . . . ...... 32General . . . . . . . .. . ... 62

Total . . . ... . . 98

15. btudent personnel administration. . . 44

16 All other. . . . . . . . . . ... .... . . . 453

Total of all oategOtkeigty: . . . . . . . . . . . . 2542)7

9

10

TABLE 5.--ACADEMIC MAJORS, SOME DISCREPANCIES BETWEENTHE REPORTS BY INDIVIDUALS AND INSTITUTIONS

Major fieldReported by Reported byrespondents institutions Discrep .ncy

Number Number Number

1 2 3 4

Clinical psychology 98 56 42Educational psychology 149 186 37Secondary education 99 140 41

TABLE 6.--DISTRIBUTION OF PH.D.'S AND ED.D.'S, BY MAJOR FIELDS

Major Fields Ph.D. Ed.D.Percent Percent Number

1 2 3 4

Special education 36.0% 64.0% 50Administration 14.2 85.8 621

Curriculum 19.1 80.9 115Physical education 25.2 74.8 107Practical arts 32.8 67.2 128Social foundations 57.1 42.9 63Subject areas 31.1 68.5 164Mathematics or science education 48.1 51.9 77Educational psychology 76.5 23.5 149Secondary education 18.2 81.8 99Elementary education 23.1 76.9 130Higher education 26.8 73.2 71Guidance 35.8 64.2 173Clinical psychology 87.8 12.2 98Student personnel administration. 25.0 75.0 44

Chapter III

THE SAMPLE CHARACTERIZEDWe frequently expect groups to be homogeneous

with respect to a number of traits. Stereotyping iscommon. It is expected that persons who get doc-toral degrees in the field of education will be some-what alike. Great differences also exist, however.

The ratio of males to females in the samplewas approximately four to one (79.7 to 20.3). Chi-square analysis shows a significantly (p < .05)higher proportion of women taking the Ph.D. degreethan the Ed.D. degree (see Table 7). As might beexpected, some major fields seemed to attractgreater or lesser numbers of women than otherfields (see Table 8). For example, in administrationonly 6 percent were women; in social foundations,12.7 percent; and in secondary education, 16.2 per-cent. 'On the other hand, in curriculum 37.4 percentwere women; in the practical arts, 34.6 percent; inelementary education, 33.1 percent; and in physicaleducation, 30.8 percent. These figures should beevaluated relative to the growing view that womenconstitute a pool of talent not yet sufficiently ex-ploited.

The median year of birth of the respondents was1919. This means that at the time the degree wasconferred to persons in this sample, half of themwere 38 or 39 years of age, or older. The years ofbirth extend from 1886 to 1933- -a range of 47 years(see Table 9). The interquartile range is 11 years(1913-24), meaning that one-fourth of the sample wasborn prior to 1913 and one-fourth after 1924. It isan evaluative interpretation, but it does seem that asizable group from this sample can contribute onlya limited number of their most productive years tothe field of education. The Ph.D. group as a wholeis slightly more than two years younger than theEd.D. group, a difference which is statistically sig-nificant (p < .01) (see Table 10).

Using only the 38 institutions which contributedat least 20 graduates each to the sample, the medianyear of birth, by institutions, varies from 1914 to1923--a range of 9 years.! / While this range is notgreat, the pattern into which the institutions fall, asordered on this item, becomes very interesting whenrelated to institutional order on certain other factorsin the degree programs. For instance, a correla-tion of .51 results between age ranks by institutionsand median length of program, indicating that greater

age tends to accompany longer programs. A corre-lation of .39 results between proportion of studentshaving critical periods and age.?/ A correlation of.44 was found between age and proportion of grad-uates holding public-school positions in 1958-59,possibly indicating that the older graduates tend togo more toward public-school than college positions.A correlation of .71 results between age and theproportion of students holding assistantships (withreversed ranks), probably indicating either that in-stitutions tend not to award assistantships to olderstudents or that older students have less need ofthem or accept them less often than do youngerstudents. For this sample, there is no correlation,however, between age and proportion of students hold-ing scholarships and fellowships. Thitisuggests thatif the former correlation (assistantships and age) isthe result of institutional policy, those policies donot apply to scholarships and fellowships. Anotherinterpretation of the age-assistantship correlation,and one possil more realistic, is simply thatyounger students are not attracted to institutionsthat award only a few assistantships, whereas insti-tutions offering large numbers of scholarships andfellowships attract young and old alike.

Numerous kinds of community backgrounds arerepresented (see Table 11). Large cities produced29.9 percent of the total group; villages, 15 percent;and rural areas, 14 percent. As a group, the Ph.D.'sare statistically independent of the Ed.D.'s in thisrespect (p < .001). The greater portion of theEd.D.'s were reared in rural communities, villages,and nonsuburban towns, as contrasted with thePh.D.'s, whose early lives tended to be spent inlarge cities (see Table 12). If the sum of the pro-portions of the sample originating in rural areasand villages is used as an index of community back-ground, it would be expected that 29 percent of anysubgroup would have this background. However,among major fields, it becomes apparent that con-siderable variation existed. Only 8.1 percent of theclinical psychologists, 15 percent of physical educa-tion majors, 16 percent of special educationmajors,15.9 percent of social foundations majors, and 18.2percent of the mathematics or science majors comefrom rural and village backgrounds (see Table 13).On the other hand, 42.2 percent of practical artsmajors, 39.2 percent of elementary education majors,and 36.4 percent of the administration majors were

The cle1/ cisiOn to use only the 38 institutions contributing 20 or more to the sample was_made to reduce the .posSibility of spurious comparisons. For instance, on any given item of the question-naire, a certain potOofit of an institution's graduates responded to a Specific category. Given these per-cents, the institutions can be ranked accordingly. However,' institutions having few respondents produCepercents of extremely high or low magnitude which adversely affect ,the validity of the rankings. To mini-mize this effect, I institutions producing less than 20 respondents .are omitted from institutional comparisons.

2/ A "critical 'period" is 'defined in this report as a period' in which the doctoral program was tem-porarily discontinued because of adverse conditions. (See page 44.)

12

reared in this type of community. For the 38 highestproducing institutions, the proportion of graduatesreared in rural and village communities varied from64 percent to 11.3 percent. In general, the inscitu-tions located in large metropolitan areas drew stu-dents from large city background, but there were asufficient number of exceptions among institutions topreclude high correlation.

Forty-nine of the states, the District of Colum-bia, Puerto Rico, and a large number of foreignnations are represented in the sample. Table 14was designed to investigate the question of whetheror not these education graduates tended to representspecific states or regions of the country. An equallyinteresting question concerns the relationship ofactual to expected state contributions to this popula-tion of academicians. To examine this relationship,states were ranked according to population as re-corded in the 1920 census of the United States.3/(This was close to the median year of birth, 1919.)The states were ranked again according to theircontribution of births to the total sample. This madeit possible to see the amount of variation betweenactual and expected contributions. A deviation of ±5was taken arbitrarily as a critical difference. Therewere nine states which deviated by five or moreranks in a negative direction, and nine more stateswhich deviated this much in the positive direction.In the list of "underproducing" and "overproducing"states which follows, the order, reading down in eachcolumn, is from most to least extreme deviation:

Underproducing Overproducingstates states

KentuckyGeorgiaLouisianaWest VirginiaFloridaVirginiaMissouriSouth CarolinaNorth Carolina

Utah.

NebraskaKansasConnecticutIowaColoradoWashingtonOklahomaSouth Dakota

It is immediately apparent that all of the under-producing states are in a group generally referredto as the "southern" states. The overproducingstates do not form a unitary group but seven of thenine are part of what may be referred to as the"great, plains" tates. Connecticut and: Washingtondo not fit this pattern. Why did it happen this way7The question is perhapsa noCiological one, and theanswer, also. This ,atudy,,does not attempt to seeksolutions, although the solution may have significancefor the purpose of this study.. At a: euperficialit may be that the explanation lies in the kinds ofsocial structure in the various. regions plus the rela-tive emphases on social mobility in the mores of

these regions. However, to generalize about regionsis not wholly justified because there were southernstates which were not underproducers, and greatplains states which were not overproducers. Insti-tutions among the 38 largest prodt.cers vary widelyin the proportion of graduates who were born in thestate; the range is from 78.3 percent to 2.1 percent.

In general, the fathers of the respondents wereengaged in the so-called "blue- collar" and "white-collar" occupations, but a sizable block was engagedin professional, semiprofessional, or managerialactivities (see Table 15). Surprisingly, only a verysmall group was associated with the field of educa-tion, either as teachers (4.2 percent) or nonteachers(1.4 percent). As would be expected, the fathers ofthe individuals in this sample do not represent anaccurate occupational cross section of the countryas a whole, 'being considerably higher in the occupa-tional hierarchy. Table 16 gives a comparison be-tween the occupational status of fathers of this groupand fathers of the labor force as a whole. If oneuses distributions within the total labor force as hisbasis for comparison of these fathers with fathersin general, he notes that the proportion of thesefathers in professional, clerical, sales, and agricul-ture is considerably greater than would be expected.He notes, also, that the proportion of these fathersfrom semiskilled and unskilled groups is much lessthan would be expected. The fact that the fathersof the sample did not represent a national averagecould have been anticipated, for this sample is ahighly select group. However, it would be interest-ing to compare this sample with a similar sample ofdoctoral recipients from fields other than education.In any case, since each respondent is now a memberof the professional occupational group, it is obviousthat the sample has evidenced high social mobility.The occupational status of fathers of the Ph.D.'stends to differ from that of fathers of the Ed.D.'s( p < .10). The former are concentrated somewhatmore in professional, clerical, and sales work (seeTable 17). Among the major fields, practical artsand elementary education majors have a low propor-tion Cif fathers from the professional group; they havea high proportion of fathers from the agriculturalgroup. Clinical psychologists have a high proportionof fathers from the professional group (31.6 percent),none from agriculture, and a high proportion, fromthe skilled labor group (21.4 percent). Student per-sonnel administration majors also evidence a highpercentage of professional fathers (34.1 percent)and fathers involved in skilled labor (22.7 percent)(see Table 18).

Institutions varied widely as to the proportion ofstudents enrolled from the various occupational back-grounds. 'Enrollments from professional, semi-professional, and Managerial backgrounds rangedfrom 35.1 percent to 8 percent. from agricultural

3/ U.S. DepartMent of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Fourteenth Census of the United States Takenin the Year 1920 im1. I, POnnlation.1920;NUMber and Distribution of Inhabitants, Table 5, p.,16. Washing-ton, D.C.: GoVerninent Printing Office, 1921.

00021

backgrounds, the range was from 45.8 percent to0.0 percent; and from skilled labor backgrounds, therange was from 32 percent to 3 percent. Institutionalprestige may be the basis for discrimination betweencolleges by students from homes representing theupper end of the occupational scale. For studentsfrom agricultural or trade backgrounds, this dis-crimination may be based upon accessibility toand/or familiarity with the setting in which the insti-tution is located.

Mothers, in general, were not engaged in theoccupations; the large ma jority, 76.5 percent, werelisted as housewives (see Table 19), and no differ-ences requited from Ed.D.-Ph.D. comparisons.

The educational level attained by the parentswas commensurate with the occupational levels theyachieved. In the total group, only 15.4 percent ofthe fathers and 8.3 percent of the mothers had re-ceived college degrees (see Tables 20 and 21).Among those with degrees, 1.6 percent of the fathersand 0.2 percent of the mothers had received doctor'sdegrees. The respondents seem to have surpassedthe educational accomplishments of their parents inapproximately 99 percent of the cases. When onelooks at the other end of the educational scale, henote3 that 62.8 percent of the fathers and 63.3 per-cent of the mothers did not complete high school(see Tables 20 and 21). This may suggest that theparents as a whole had a poor educational back-ground. But such may not have been the vise, forthese facts must be considered in their apprcpriatetime and place.

The highest proportion of fathers with less thana high-school education was reported by social found-ations majors (71.4 percent). Clinical psychologistsreported the fewest fathers with less than a high-school degree (49 percent). All other major fieldswere near the mean in this respect, and Ph.D. -Ed.D.comparisons show no differences on either fathers'or mothers' education. In the 38 high producinginstitutions, the proportion of fathers with less than

13

a high-school education ranges from 84 percent to47.5 percent (see Table 22).

Approximately 80.3 percent of the respondentswere married. The year of marriage ranged from1913 to 1959. The median year of marriage was1945. One-half of the marriages occurred between1941 and 1950 (see Table 23). Most married studentsreported one to three children. The median was two.Approximately 10.4 percent of the married individ-uals were childless. Pursuit of the doctoral degreein education seemed most often to be a family enter-prise (see Table 24 and Appendix A).

Unlike parental, education which appears low bypresent standards, the academic attainment ofspouses was high (see Table 25). Although only 2.7percent had received a doctorate, 61.9 percent hadat least a bachelor's degree, 19percent had receiveda master's or first professional degree, and 84.5percent had completed some college training. Amongthe spouses who had received college degrees, 24.8percent had majored in some aspect of education;14.3 percent, in the humanities; 11.5 percent, in atechnical or vocational field; and 8.8 percent, insocial science (see Table 26).

The degree level of spouses appears to beapproximately the same for respondents from each ofthe major fields. If, however, one uses 62 percentas a norm for his expectations relative to the pro-portion of spouses who hold a minimum of thebaccalaureate degree, he does note that spouses ofsocial foundations majors exceed the norm by a con-siderable margin. He notes, also, that spouses ofmajors in secondary education fall considerably shortof the norm (see Table 27 and Appendix A).

More than one-half, actually 52.5 percent, of thespouses had engaged in some kind of occupation dur-ing the respondents' doctoral programs. Table 28indicates that 22.8 percent had taught, 12.1 percentwere involved in clerical or sales work, and 11.1percent had done professional, semiprofessional, ormanagerial work.

TABLE 7.--DISTRIBUTION OF PH.D. AND ED.D. DEGREESBETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE RESPONDENTS

RespondentsPh.D. Ed.D. Total

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Male

Female . .

663

202

76.6%

23.4

1364

313

81.3%

18.7

2027

515

79.7%

20.3

()O( 99

14

TABLE 8.--DISTRIBUTION OF MALE AND FEMALERESPONDENTS, BY MAJOR FIELDS

Major fieldMale 1?emale Number

Percent Percent1 2 3 4

Special education 76.0% 24.0% 50Administration 94.0 6.0 621Curriculum 62.6 37.4 115Physical education 69.2 30.8 107Practical arts 66.4 34.6 128Social foundations 87.3 12.7 63Subject areas 79.9 20.1 164Mathematics or science 80.5 19.5 77Educational psychology 79.9 20.1 149Secondary education 83.8 16.2 99Elementary education 66.9 33.1 130Higher education 73.2 26.8 71Guidance 75.1 24.9 173Clinical psychology 78.6 21.4 98Student personnel administration. 75.0 25.0 44

TABLE 9.--YEAR OF BIRTH

Year Number Year Number Year Number Year Number

1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 .8

1886 1 1903 15 1914 146 1925 1341890 1 1904 12 1915 101 1926 1191893 1 1905 36 1916 127 1927 931895 3 1906 39 1917 111 1928 681896 5 1907 52 1918 141 1929 611897 2 1908 59 1919 120 1930 391898 6 1909 60 1920 152 1931 171899 8 1910 74 1921 149 1932 101900 10 1911 70 1922 128 1933 31901 7 1912 112 1923 101 Unknown 1

1902 19 1913 71 1924 104 Total 2542

TABLE 10.--YEAR OF BIRTH AND KIND OF DEGREE

Year of BirthPh.D. Ed.D.

Number Percent Number Percent Total Number

1 2 3 4 6 6

Before 1899. . 6 0.6% 13 0.8% 191899-1903. . . 15 1.7 44 2.1 591904-1908... 38 4.4 160 9.6 1981909-1913.. . 98 11.4 289 17.3 38719144918. . . 179 203. 401 23.9 5801919-1923. .. 241 27.8 409 24.4 6501924-1928. . . 217 25.0 301 17.9 5181929-1933. .. 71 8.0 59 3 6 130Unknown . . . . 0 0.0 1 0.1 1

Total . . . 865 100.0% 1677 100.0% 2542

TA

BL

E 1

1.--

CO

MM

UN

ITY

BA

CK

GR

OU

ND

Com

mun

ity b

ackg

roun

dN

umbe

rPe

rcen

t1

23

Rur

al. .

..

..

.. .

.... .

... .

... .

356

14.0

%V

illag

e (u

nder

2;5

00),

..

..

..

... .

. . .

382

15.0

Tow

n, n

o su

burb

(2,

500-

10,0

00)

366

14.4

Tow

n, s

ubur

b (2

,500

-10,

000)

..

.. .

...92

3.6

Smal

l city

, no

subu

rb(1

0,00

0-10

0,00

0) .

446

17.5

Smal

l city

sub

urb

(10

000-

100

000)

..

121

4.8

Lar

ge c

ity (

over

100

,000

).

759

29.9

No'

res

pons

e20

0.8

Tot

al25

4210

0.0%

TA

BL

E 1

2.--

KIN

D O

F.D

EG

RE

E, B

YC

OM

MU

NIT

Y B

AC

KG

RO

UN

D

Com

mun

ity b

ackg

roun

d1

Rur

alV

illag

e (u

nder

2,5

00)

Tow

n, n

o su

burb

(2,

500-

10,0

00)

Tow

n, s

ubur

b (2

,500

-10,

000)

Smal

l city

, no

subu

rb(1

0,00

0-10

0,00

0)Sm

all c

ity, s

ubur

b(1

0,00

0-10

0,00

3) .

Lar

ge c

ity (

over

100

,000

)N

o re

spon

seT

otal

TA

BL

E 1

3.--

CO

MM

IRII

TY

BA

CK

GR

OU

ND

,B

Y M

AJO

R F

IEL

DS

Ph.D

.E

d.D

.N

umbe

rPe

rcen

tN

umbe

r Pe

rcen

t2

34

596

11.1

%26

015

.5%

106

12.3

276

16.5

103

11.9

263

15.7

273.

163

3.9

152

17.6

294

17.5

424.

979

4.7

334

38.6

425

25.3

50.

515

0.9

865

100.

0%16

7710

0.07

0

Maj

orfie

ldR

ural

Vill

age

Tow

n,no

sub

urb

Tow

n,su

burb

'rots

ubur

brtKS

mal

l city

,su

burb

Larg

e ci

tyN

ore

spon

seN

umbe

r1

2.4

56

78

910

Spe

cial

edu

catio

n6.

0%10

.0%

10.0

%8.

0%16.0%

14.0

%36

.0%

50A

dmin

istr

atio

n18

.018

.415

.53.

915

.14.

723

.31.

1%62

1C

urric

ulum

19.1

11.3

19.1

2.6

15.7

4.3

27.0

0.9

115

Phy

sica

l edu

catio

nP

ract

ical

art

s7.

525

.07.

517

.214

.018

.08.

42.

315

.914

.88.

43.

138

.318

.0i:g

107

128

Soc

ial f

ound

atio

ns4.

811

.112

.77.

911

.14.

847

.663

Sub

lect

are

as7.

918

.314

.62.

418

.96.

131

.10.

616

4M

athe

mat

ics

or s

cien

ce9.

19.

110

.43.

922

.16.

539

.077

Edu

catio

nal p

sych

olog

y12

.115

.48.

12.

020

.13.

438

.30.

714

9S

econ

dary

edu

catio

n14

.120

.216

.23.

022

.24.

020

.279

Ele

men

tary

edu

catio

nH

ighe

r ed

ucat

ion

22.3

11.3

16.9

12.7

20.8

11.3

3.1

1.4

17.7

31.0

1.5

2.8

17.7

26.8

2.8

130

71G

uida

nce

13.9

13.3

9.2

2.9

20.8

6.4

31.2

2.3

173

Clin

ical

psy

chol

ogy

1.0

7.1

9.2

4.1

11.2

3.1

64.3

98S

tude

nt p

erso

nnel

adm

inis

trat

ion

6.8

15.9

15.9

4.5

20.5

4.5

24.

2.3

44

TA

BL

E 1

4.--

DIF

FER

EN

CE

S IN

ST

AT

ES'

RA

NK

S W

HE

N B

ASE

D U

PON

PO

PUL

AT

ION

IN

192

0A

ND

WH

EN

BA

SED

UPO

N A

CT

UA

L C

ON

TR

IBU

TIO

N O

F B

IRT

HS

TO

TH

E S

AM

PLE

1920

popu

latio

n ra

nkSa

mpl

e ra

nkD

iffe

renc

e

34

New

Yor

k

Tex

as:-

.-..

1

Mas

sach

uset

ts

MiC

higa

nC

alifo

rnia

Mis

sour

i: N

ew J

erse

y .

"

-- I

ndia

naO

OO

,7-.

-;G

eorg

ia.

."..,

;;Wis

cons

in ..

...--

Nor

th C

arol

ina

.22"

Ker

ituck

9

5

0 0 0 0 0

60

8-1

9-1

15.5

1010

0-

6.5°

11 12 13 14 15

Iow

a.16

Min

neso

ta17

Ala

bam

a18

Ten

ness

ee19

Vir

gini

a20

Okl

ahco

ia21

Lou

isia

na...

,22

Mis

siss

ippi

...

. .23

Kan

sas

.....

24

0

25

-13

°13

019

-5 a

29.5

-14.

5

74.

9b

170

21.5

- 3.

520

- 1

27.5

- 7.

5°

144.

7b

33.5

-11.5°

27.5

- 4.

512

+12

b

Stat

e19

20po

pula

tion

rank

Sam

ple

rank

Dif

fere

nce

12

34

Ark

ansa

s25

21.5

+ 3

.5So

uth

Car

olin

a26.

31.5

- 5,

5°W

est V

irgi

nia

2738

.5-1

1.5°

Mar

ylan

d28

29.5

- 1.

5C

onne

ctic

ut29

18+11

b

Was

hing

ton

3024

+ 7

b

Neb

rask

a31

15.5

+15

.5b

Florida

3242

.5-1

0.5°

Col

orad

o33

26+

7b

Ore

gon

3433

.5+

.5

Mai

ne35

33.5

+ 1

.5N

orth

Dak

ota

36

35.5

+.5

Sout

h D

akot

a37

31.5

+5.56

Rhode Island

38

41

- 3

Montana

39

38.5

+.5

Uta

h4040

23+

17b

4139

.5+

1.5

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

a..

4244

.5-

2.5

Idah

o43

38.5

+ 4

.5N

ew M

exic

o44

48.5

- 4.

5

Ver

mon

t45

44.5

+.5

Ari

zona

4642

.5+

3.5

Del

awar

e47

470

Wyo

min

g48

46

2

Nev

ada

4948

.5+

.5

°Und

erpr

oduc

ing

stat

esb

Ove

rpro

duci

ng s

tate

s

TABLE 15. -- FATHERS' OCCUPATIONS

Occupational group Number Percent1 2 3

Professional, semiprofessional,or managerial 602 23.7%

Clerical and sales 605 23.8Service 59 2.3Agriculture 406 16.0Skilled labor 396 15.6Semiskilled or unskilled 208 8.2Education, teacher 106 4.2Education, nonteacher 35 1.4Other 12 0.5No response 113 4.3

Total 2542 100.0%

TABLE 16.--DISTRIBUTION OF FATHERS' OCCUPATIONS CONTRASTEDWITH THE TOTAL MALE LABOR FORCE, 1920 CENSUS

U.S. census categoriesQuestionnaire

categories1 2

Professional, technical, and kindredworkers; managers, officials, andproprietors, excl. farm

Clerical and kindred workers;sales workers

Farmers and farm managers; farmlaborers and foremen

Private household workers; serviceworkers, excl. private household

Craftsmen, foremen, and kindredworkers

Operators and kindred workers;laborers, excl. farm and mine

Professional, semi-professional; mana-gerial; education,teacher and nonteacher

Clerical and sales

Agricultural

Service

Skilled labor

Semiskilled and un-skilled labor

Censuspercent

Samplepercent

3 4

20.7% 30.7%

12.1 25.0

11.8 16.8

6.4 2.4

19.1 16.4

29.8 8.6

TABLE 17.--FATHERS' OCCUPATIONS, BY PH.D.'S AND ED.D.'S

Occupational group Ph.D. Ed.D.NUmber Percent NuMber Percent

Professional; semiprofessional, or managerial . .Clerical-and aales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Service . . .Agriculture:,Skilled labOr . . . .Semiskilled or unilkilledEdueation,teacher . . . . .Educniithi, nonteacher.Other .No response . .

. .II

.. . ...

2 3

226 26.1%224 25.9

14; 1.6107 12.4124 14.3

77 8.936 4.213 1.54 0.5

40 4.6

865 100.0%

. . '

Total .. ... . . .

00026

4

376381

45299272131

7022

873

5

22.4%22.72.7

17.816.27.84.21.30.54.4

1677 100.0%

17

TA

BL

E 1

8.--

FAT

HE

R'S

OC

CU

PAT

ION

S,B

Y M

AJO

R F

IEL

DS

Maj

or f

ield

Prof

essi

onal

,et

c.

Cle

rica

lan

dsa

les

Serv

ice

Agr

icul

ture

Skill

edla

bor

Sem

iski

lled

orun

skill

edT

each

erE

duca

tion,

nont

each

erN

ore

spon

seN

umbe

r

12

34

56

78

910

11

Spec

ial e

duca

tion

24.0

%36

.0%

2.0%

8.0%

.14.

0%6.

0%6.

0%4.

0%50

Adm

inis

trat

ion

21.1

17.9

3.1

21.9

16.6

8.1

4.3

Eic

x,4.

662

1

Cur

ricu

lum

....

25.2

28.7

2.6

18.3

8.7

4.3.

4.3

7.9

115

Phys

ical

edu

catio

n..

24.3

25.2

1.9

6.5

23.4

8.4

3.7

6.5

107

Prac

tical

art

s...

.13

.312

.53.

930

.520

.38.

66.

30.

83.

912

8

Soci

al f

ound

atio

ns27

.027

.01.

67.

99.

514

.33.

23.

26.

363

15.4

i4ki

ttetar

eas

......

.....

-em

etic

s or

sci

ence

Edu

catio

nal p

sych

olog

y....

29.9

:23

.424

:2

29.9

35.1

26.8

1.8

2.6

0.7

7.9

16.9

12.1

14.0

10.4

15.4

7.9

3.9

9.4

4.3

3.9

5.4

0.6

2.0

3.6

3.9

4.0

16477

149

Sece

ndar

y ed

ucat

ion

. . .

27.3

20.2

14.1

17.2

11.1

4.0

1.0

5.1

99

Ele

men

tary

edu

catio

n16

.926

.93:

826

.911

.56.

23.

83.

813

0

Hig

her

educ

atio

n...

29.6

21.1

2.8

12.7

12.7

5.6

5.6

2:8

7.0

71

.'

Gui

danc

e .

..

..22

.530

.11.

211

.017

.97.

52.

31.

26.

417

3

Clin

ical

psy

chol

ogy

31.6

27.6

2.0

21.4

12.2

2.0

3.0

98

;;;,S

tude

nt p

erso

nnel

adm

inis

trat

ion

34.1

20.5

2.3

:t.i

22.7

9.1

2.3

i:i2.

344

TA

BL

E 1

9.--

MO

TH

ER

S'O

CC

UPA

TIO

NS

Occ

upat

iona

l gro

upN

umbe

r Pe

rcen

t

12

3

Prof

essi

onal

, sem

ipro

fess

iona

l,or

man

ager

ial

..

..

.. .

.C

leri

cal a

nd s

ales

..

..

Serv

ice

Agr

icul

ture

Skill

ed la

bor

..

..

.

Sem

iski

lled

or u

nski

lled

Edu

catio

n, te

ache

rE

duca

tion,

non

teac

her

Hou

sew

ife

No

resp

onse

84 116 314 20 11 215 3

1944 11

4

3.3%

4.6

1.2

0.2

0.8

0.4

8.5

0.1

76.5 4.5

Tot

al25

4210

0.0%

TA

BL

E 2

0.--

FAT

HE

RS'

ED

UC

AT

ION

AL

LE

VE

LS

Edu

catio

nal l

evel

Num

ber

Perc

ent

12

3

Ele

men

tary

(1-

8 gr

ades

)10

5341

.4%

Hig

h sc

hool

, unf

inis

hed

544

21.4

Hig

h sc

hool

gra

duat

e ...

.. .

.11

24.

4T

wo

year

s co

llege

, or

less

. ..

.24

39.

6M

ore

than

two

year

s, n

o de

gree

682.

7

Bac

helo

r's d

egre

e19

37.

6

Mas

ter's

or

firs

t pro

fess

iona

lde

gree

157

6.2

Doc

tor's

deg

ree.

401.

6O

ther

, or

liste

d as

dece

ased

..41

1.6

No

resp

onse

..

913.

5

Tot

al25

4210

0.0%

TA

BL

E 2

1.--

MO

TH

ER

S' E

DU

CA

TIO

NA

L L

EV

EL

ST

AB

LE

23.

--Y

EA

R O

F M

AR

RIA

GE

Edu

catio

nal l

evel

Num

ber

Perc

ent

Yea

rN

umbe

rY

ear

Num

ber

Yea

rN

umbe

r1

23

12

12

12

Ele

men

tary

(1-

8 gr

ades

) .

..

923

36.3

%19

131

1933

2919

4810

6H

igh

scho

ol, u

nfin

ishe

d .

..

686

27.0

1917

119

3431

1949

97H

igh

scho

ol g

radu

ate

_. .

.1.

666.

519

203

1935

3319

5012

2T

wo

year

e co

llege

, or

less

..

292

11.5

1921

119

3645

1951

102

Mor

etha

n tw

o ye

ars,

no

degr

ee12

14.

819

221

1937

3319

5274

Bac

helo

r's d

egre

e.

..

..

..

.16

86.

619

232

1938

4319

5364

Mas

ter's

or

firs

t pro

fess

iona

l19

2410

1939

7119

5452

degr

ee .

..

..

... .

... .

.37

1.5

1925

519

4078

1955

50D

octo

r's d

egre

e4

0.2

1926

719

4110

819

5646

Oth

er; o

r lis

ted

as d

ecea

sed.

..

502.

019

278

1942

132

1957

34N

o re

spon

se95

3.6

1928

1519

4311

419

5821

1529

1419

4497

1959

1T

otal

..

2542

100.

0%19

3014

1945

84Si

ngle

and

1931

2219

4613

4no

res

pons

e20

9_19

3220

1947

117

Tot

al25

42

TA

BL

E 2

2.--

FAT

HE

RS'

ED

UC

AT

ION

AL

LE

VE

LS,

BY

MA

JOR

FIE

LD

S

Ele

men

tary

Hig

h sc

hool

Col

lege

Deg

ree

yrs.

Mor

eB

.A.,

M.A

.,E

.D.

Maj

or fi

eld

Unf

inis

hed

Gra

duat

eor

than

B.S

.,M

.S.,

orN

o re

spon

seN

umbe

rle

ss2

yrs.

etc.

etc.

Ph.

D.

12

34

56

78

910

11

Spe

cial

edu

catio

n34

.0%

20.0

%4.

0%12

.0%

6.0%

4.0%

10.0

%...

10.0

%50

Adm

inis

trat

ion

45.4

20.6

4.0

9.8

2.7

5.5

6.6

1.6%

3.7

621

Cur

ricul

um42

.619

.14.

312

.24.

36.

15.

21.

74.

311

5

Phy

sica

l edu

catio

n44

.921

.56.

57.

50.

96.

55.

60.

95.

610

7P

ract

ical

art

s46

.119

.53.

97.

85.

52.

33.

91.

69.

412

8S

ocia

l fou

ndat

ions

.52

.419

.0...

3.2

4.8

9.5

3.2

1.6

6.4

63

Sub

ject

are

as38

.415

.94.

913

.42.

412

.26.

72.

43.

616

4M

athe

mat

ics

or s

cien

ce. .

..37

.728

.67.

83.

91.

39.

15.

2.1.

35.

277

Edu

catio

nal p

sych

olog

y40

.916

.82.

013

.43.

49.

47.

41.

35.

314

9

Sec

onda

ry e

duca

tion

44.4

24.2

2.0

5.1

1.0

,11

.16.

11.

05.

199

Ele

men

tary

edu

catio

n43

.126

.93.

110

.00.

86.

93.

82.

33.

013

0H

ighe

r ed

ucat

ion

32.4

28.2

1.4

5.6

1.4

8.5

11.3

...11

.371

Gui

danc

e35

.331

.85.

26.

42.

39.

24.

00.

65.

217

3C

linic

al p

sych

olog

y34

.714

.311

.210

.29.

27.

13.

110

.298

Stu

dent

per

sonn

el a

dmin

istr

atio

n43

.218

.26.

82.

3i:i

11.4

6.8

4.5

2.3

441-

,so

20

TABLE 24.--NUMBER OF CHILDREN

Number of childrenNumber ofrespondents

Of total sample Of married personsPercent Percent

1 2 3 4

One 428 16.8% 20.9%Two 710 27.9 34.7Three 356 14.0 17.4Four 153 6.0 7.5Five 45 1.8 2.2Six 12 0.5 0.6Seven 4 0.2 0.2Eight or more 3 0.1 0.1None 215 8.5 10.4Single and no response 616 24.2 6.0

Total 2542 100.0% 100.0%

The questionnaire included no item requesting marital status.Therefore the percent in this category are based on our "bestestimate" that 2048 individuals in the sample were married. Thesame figure 2048 was used to obtain the percent of married personsin Tables 25, 26, 27, and 28.

TABLE 25.--EDUCATIONAL LEVELS OF SPOUSES

Educational levelOf total sample Of married persons

Number Percent Percent2 3 4

Elementary 5 0.2% 0.2%High school, unfinished ..... 190 7.5 9.3High school graduate 122 4.8 6.0Two years college; or less . . . 290 11.4 14.2More than two years, no degree . . . . 172 6.8 8.4Bachelor's degree 823 32.4 40.2Master's or first professional degree 389 15.3 19.0Doctor's degree 58 2.3 2.7Single and no response 494 19.3 0.0

Total . . . . . . 2542 100.0% 100.0%

TABLE 26.--ACADEMIC MAJORS OF SPOUSES WHO HAD ATTAINED THE.BACCALAUREATE OR A. HIGHER DEGREE

Major field

1

Of total .sample Of married personsNumber Percent Percent

2. 3 4

507 :19.9% 24.8%Biological science . . . . . . . . 26 1.0 1.3Physical science . . ... . . . . . . . . 42 1.7 2.1Social science . . . . . . '-. . . . . . . . . 18i 7.1 8.8Humanities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .` . . 293 11.5 14.3Technical or vocational. . . ... . . 236 9.3 11.5Other .,. . . . 4 0.2 0.2. -Inapplicable; no degree . . . . . . . . . 364 14.3 17.8Single and no response . . . :889 35.0 19.2

Total 2542. 100.0% 100.0%

TA

BLE

27.

--LE

VE

L O

F S

PO

US

ES

' ED

UC

AT

ION

, BY

MA

JOR

FIE

LDS

, WIT

HP

ER

CE

NT

AG

ES

CO

RR

EC

TE

D F

OR

UN

MA

RR

IED

RE

SP

ON

DE

NT

S

Maj

or fi

eld

tlem

entiH

igh

scho

olC

olle

geD

egre

eN

umbe

rN

umbe

r

Unf

inis

hed

Gra

duat

e2

yrs.

Mor

e th

anor

less

2 yr

s.

B.A

.,B

.S.,

etc.

M.A

.,M

.S.,

etc.

Ed.

D.

orP

h.D

.M

arrie

dT

otal

12

34

56

78

910

11

_ , S

peci

aled

ucat

ion

.... .

Adm

inis

trat

ion

......

.....

Cur

ricul

um.

"Phy

sica

l edu

cxst

ion.

......

..%

Nilo

' Pra

ctic

al a

rts...

....

, .....r

.S

ocia

l fou

ndat

ions

.. .

....

CA

: Sub

ject

are

as .

. . .

.. . .

. . .

.c.

o., M

athe

mat

ics

or s

cien

ce..

.. ..

' Edu

catio

nal p

sych

olog

y....

..S

econ

dary

edu

catio

nE

lem

enta

ry e

duca

tion

......

.H

ighe

r ed

ucat

ion

....

Gui

danc

e...

...C

linic

al p

sych

olog

y ...

.S

tude

nt p

erso

nnel

adm

inis

t7at

ion

0:29

6

... ... .0.

. 6:8

1.0

2.0

SOO

14.6

%9.

85.

2

9.2

8.3

4.3

10.5 8. 7.6

17.1 5.1

8.0

9.5

7A 3.1

2.4%

5.5

7.8

6.6

12.5

2.1

4.8

8.2

1.7

7.3

5.1

8.0

6.6

8.6

3.1

9.8%

16.0

13.0

15.8

11A

12.8

11.3

11.5

11.9

13.4

14.3

12.0

17.6

12.3

6.3

17.1

%7.

67.

8

5.3

5.2

4.3

8.9

6.6

12.7

13.4

10.2 8.0

5.1

1.2

15.6

34.1

%45

.645

.4

44.7

39.6

48.9

40.3

45.9

39.9

30.5

39.8

42.0

33.6

30.9

40.6

19.5

%14

.615

.6

17.1

20.8

25.5

22.6

16.4

23.7

14.6

21.4

18.0

23.4

28.4

28.1

2.5%

0.7

5.2

1.3

2.2

2.1

1.6

3.2

1.7

3.7

3.1

2.0

4.2

11.2

3.2

41 563

77 76 96 47 124

61 118 82 98 50 137

81 32

5062

111

5

107

128

63 164

77 149

99 130

71 173

98 44

22

TABLE 28.--OCCUPATIONS OF SPOUSES DURING THE DOCTORAL PROGRAM,WITH PERCENTAGES CORRECTED FOR UNMARRIED RESPONDENTS

Occupational groupOf total Of married persons

Number Percent P :rcent1 2 3 4

Professional, semiprofessional, or managerial 227 8.9% 11.1%Clerical and sales 248 9.8 12.1Service 10 0.4 0.5Agriculture 4 0.2 0.2Skilled labor 8 0.3 0.4Semiskilled or unskilled 5 0.2 0.2Education, teacher 466 18.3 22.8Education, nonteacher 66 2.6 3.2Housewife 934 36.7 45.6No response and single .. . . .. ... 574 22.6 3.9

Total 2542 100.0% 100.0%

Chapter IV

CIRCUMSTANCES AND EVENTS LEADINGUP TO DOCTORAL STUDY

In general, respondents set their ultimate edu-cational goals relatively late in their vocational-educational careers. Conscious aspirations for adoctoral degree were not of long standing. As in-dicated in Table 29, the modal period for suchconsiderations falls in the category "during themaster's program." A majority seemed to make thedecision while in school rather than while occupiedwith teaching or other employment. A significantnumber did not consider this objective until post-master's graduate study. Chi-square analysis showsthat the Ph.D.'s decided to work toward the doc-torate significantly earlier than did the Ed.D.'s( p < .001).

It would be helpful to be able to distinguish be-tween cause and effect at this point. One wonderswhether these students were late in arriving at thedecision to work toward doctorates or whether theinstitutions first showed interest in these studentswhen they were observed doing outstanding work atthe mister's level. If it was the latter, institutionsmay take heart in the knowledge that students willrespond to suggestions at this relatively late date intheir academic careers.

Decisions concerning the doctoral major wereusually made prior to the decision to pursue thedegree, but no conspicuous modal period is apparent(see Table 30). The Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s differedsignificantly ( p < .001) as to the time of decisionregarding a major, but the difference seemed to beon occupational dimensions rather than on an early-late (time) dimension (see Table 31). The Ph.D.'stended to decide upon a major while in school; the.Ed.D.'s, while teaching. One possible interpretationis that the doctoral major arose out of vocationalpursuits in the case of the Ed.D.'s and out of aca-demic pursuits in the case of the Ph.D.'s.

Respondents perceived their former professorsand, professional colleagues as influential in theirdecisions to enter the doctoral program with formerprofessors most often cited as the most influentialpersons. The respondent's spouse was often citedas being influential, but seldom decisively so. Asignificant number denied the influence of others ontheir decision to enter the program, indicating unaided self-motivation (see Table 32):. Ed.D.'s

indicated a significantly greater influence on the partof their spouse than did the Ph.D.'s ( p < .001) (seeTable 33). Employers, also, seemed to have hadmore influence on the Ed.D.'s, a finding consistentwith other observations which also suggest vocationalor professional orientation for Ed.D.'s (see Table.34).

An attempt was made to discover common as-pirations and values which might be used todescribethe motivation which prompts entrance into a doc-toral program, but these efforts produced no con-clusive results. Most individuals did not citedominant motives, checking instead a complex ofaspirations (see Table 35). This could mean thatthe individuals in fact were responding to differentpatterns of motives. It is also quite likely that in-dividuals perceived some motives as less acceptablethan others. For example, although one-third of thesample checked a desire for prestige, only 2.4 per-cent granted this motive significant status. On theother hand, the more acceptable motive of desirefor new knowledge could be safely checked as either"involved in" or "most significant in" the decisionto enter the doctoral program.

Responses of the Ed.D.'s and Ph.D.'s were sig-nificantly different on some items dealing withmotivation (see Table 36). The Ph.D.'s more fre-quently thought of themselves as being motivated iya desire to specialize than did the Ed.D.'s ( p < .01).On the other hand, the Ed.D.'s more often chose todescribe their motivation in terms of desire to re-main well qualified and to advance in rank ( p < .01and p < .05, respectively). Ph.D.'s granted impor-tance to increases in earning capacity more fre-quently than did the Ed.D.'s, but were less willingto give this factor "most significant" status asfrequently as did their counterparts ( p < .05). Noother differences were statistically significant. Itcan be noted, however, that two of the three signifi-cant differences seem to suggest, as previouslynoted, a theoretical academic orientation on the partof Ph.D.'s as contrasted with a professional-voca-tional orientation on the part of Ed.D.'s.

The material factors which made it possible forthese individuals to enter the doctoral program Arebest described as numerous and varied in pattern(see table 37). For example, the "GI Bill"1/ was

1/ The questionnaire made the distinction as to which of the Public Laws were intended by the term"GI Bill". It is assumed that respondents may have been receiving. educational benefits from any one ofseveral of the laws administered by the Veterans Administration. For a complete list of these possibilities,see United States Code, Title 38: "Veterans Beriefits--An Act. To consolidate into one Act, all of the lawsad.ministered by the Veterans' Administration, and for other purposes." (Also printed separately by theU.S. Government Printing Office; for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office,Washington 25, D.C., 1958. 240 p. 700.)

00032

24

checked most often (41.1 percent), with savings(34.1 percent) and scholarships and fellowships (29.6percent) next in frequency. Savings was seldomdescribed as the most significant factor. The "GIBill" was checked twice as often (20.1 percent) asany other "most significant" factor. A working wifeand concurrent employment were frequently writtenin as sources of income. (It should be noted in pass-ing that the factor of concurrent employment will beseen later to be extremely important-often affect-ing choice of institution and length of program, oftenperceived as contributing to critical periods andnear-critical periods, and often viewed as a sourceof distraction.) Nearly all respondents checked morethan one factor as enabling them to enter the doc-toral program, indicating that only rarely is any oneof the cited sources of income sufficient. Since themajority of the sample consisted of married menwith families, this fact is not difficult to understand.

An important question arises at this point:"How many of these individuals would not have beenable to enter the doctoral program if one of thesematerial factors had been removed?" It is obviousthat the "GI Bill" is diminishing rapidly as an avail-able source of income. A simple calculation showsthe large amount of.money granted the respondentsfrom this single source.?/ There can be little doubtthat the removal of this source would have reducedthe number of doctoral graduates within the periodof time covered by this study. The implications forthe future are obvious; ways to compensate for thisloss must be found.

Public secondary schools trained-the vast ma-jority of the men and women' in the sample (90.4percent) (see Table 38). Graduating classes rangedin size from less than '10 to far in excess of 500(see Table 39). The distribution of class size showsno conspicuous mode,, indicating that a wide varietyof schools are represented. by the group.

A broad range of types of undergraduate insti-tutions was represented by the sample. (see Table40). However, the largest single 'grouP of respon-dents (48.1 percent) received their bachelor's degreefrom large complex universities, i.e., institutionshaving three or more professional schools.3/- ThePh.D.'s and Ed.D.'s differed' significantly as to thetype of institution which'.granted their bachelor's de-grees. The'difference seems to be accounted for bythe fact that. a''-higher' proportion' of the Eci:D.'sreceived their degrees ,froniteaCher preparatoryschools (see Table 41).

State.supported-,undergradnate institutions pro-duced the largest 'portion of the sarriple (50.4 per-

cent), with private (22.2 percent) and denominational(17.7 percent) schools producing the majority of theremainder (see Table 42). Once again the Ph.D.'sand Ed.D.'s differed significantly. The Ph.D.'s morefrequently originated in foreign and municipal insti-tutions and came less frequently from state institu-tions (see Table 43).

The undergraduate major most often indicatedby the total sample was education (32.9 percent).Social science was the next most common major(27.2 percent) (see Table 44). The fact that two-thirds of the sample did not major in education isinteresting in light of the fact that all majors listedas related to education (e.g., "English education"or "teaching of social studies") were coded as edu-cation majors. Responses of the Ed.D.'s and Ph.D.'swere statistically independent. The Ed.D.'s moreoften majored in education; the Ph.D.'s, more oftenin social science and the humanities. Within themajor fields designated earlier, the proportion ofpersons majoring in education at the undergraduatelevel ranged from 76.6 percent in physicaleducationto 12.2 percent in clinical psychology (see Table 45).

.Undergraduate majors in education were numerousamong doctoral candidates in elementary education53.1 percent) and curriculum (47 percent). Under-graduate majors in education were infrequent amongdoctoral candidates in science or mathematics (16.9percent) and social foundations (17.5 percent).

It was noted earlier that almost one-half of thedoctoral recipients took undergraduate degrees invery complex institutions, but even greater numbers(81.5 percent) earned master's degrees in these in-stitutions (see Table 46). State institutions producedaporoximately the same proportion of master's de-grees as bachelor's degrees (46.8 percent and 50.4percent, respectively), while private institutions in-creased their proportional output and denominationalinstitutions dropped off considerably (see Table 47).The trend can be seen more clearly in Tables 48and 49. The expected movement of individuals intoprofessional education from other fields is readilyapparent at this point. The proportion of personsmajoring in education changed from 32.9 percent atthe bachelor's level to 68.5 percent at the master'slevel. However, humanities and social studies ma-jors still constituted a significant group which did notenter the field of education at the master's level(see Table 50). 'Approximately 53 percent of thesample did not write a master's thegis, a fact whichhad considerable AnfluenCe in the subsequent choicebetweendoctoral degrees (see Table 51). A numberof institutions require the thesis for entry into thePh.D.. pi:4ra* thus; by omission, the choice of de-gree' becomes restricted. Only '38 People (1.5 per-

2/ If we can assume' that each of 1045 persons received-benefits of $100 a month, it would have re-quirEd in excess'of $100,000 to maintain ,all of these respondents for a single month.

3/ It should be noted that 'the clasiffications used herein' were those defined in the 1957-58 edition ofthe United States Office of EduCatiOnDirectorkOf Higher 'Education.': Therefore, many institutions may havebeen reclaSeifiect since the bachelor's degree was granted to; the indiiiiduals in this sample. If reclassifica-tion has taken place; it is' most likely tO'haii been in the direction of greater complexity.

cent) earned a six-year degree (see Table 52). Inthose instances where this intermediate degree wastaken, it was usually a by-product of a co-operativeprogram between an institution without n doctoralprogram and an institution which would accept trans-ferred credit for a graduate degree.

The respondents appear to have been quite mobileduring their college careers with only 13.2 percentobtaining all three degrees at the same institution.A significant number (31.2 percent) remained at orreturned to the master's degree institution for thedoctorate. However, individuals who left an institu-tion following receipt of the bachelor's degree, sel-dom returned for the doctorate after receiving themaster's degree elsewhere (see Table 53).

Students from the various major fields exhibitedno great differences in the amount of institutionalchange incurred while moving up the academic ladder(see Table 54). Higher education majors seemed tobe the most mobile. Only 5.6 percent received alldegrees at the same institution; 42.3 percent re-ceived all degrees at different institutions. Mathe-matics or science majors and student personnel ad-ministration majors showed considerable stability atthe graduate level in that 40.3 percent and 45.5 per-cent, respectively, received master's and doctor'sdegrees at the same institution.

The Ed.D.'s and Ph.D.'s differed in the amountof institutional change incurred while pursuing thevarious degrees. This is apparently explained bythe fact that the Ed.D.'s less frequently obtained themaster's and doctorate degrees at the same institu-tion and nt 2e frequently earned each of the threedegrees in different institutions (see Table 55). Itwould seem that the Ph.D.'s more often saw theirprogram as a total graduate commitment which in-cluded the master's degree as a milestone ratherthan a potential terminal point. This interpretationis consistent with the observation that the Ph.D.'sfirst considered a doctorate at an earlier period oflife than did the Ed.D.'s.

When were the degrees received? The medianyear in which the bachelor's degree was granted tothe individuals in the sample was 1942 with 50 per-cent of the degrees being conferred between 1937and 1948 (see Table 56). The median year for re-ceipt of the master's degree was 1949 with 50 per-cent receiving the degree between 1946 and 1952(see Table 57). Thus, the "median" person wasborn in 1919, received his bachelor's degree in 1942at the age of 23, and received his master's degreeseven years later in 1949 at the age of 30. Anothereight to nine years then passed before the doctoratewas completed.

As a point of possible interest, a tabulation wasmade to determine the number of respondents whohad received bachelor's and master's degrees fromthe doctoral-producing institutions included in this

25

study. The results showed that 37.8 percent of thesample had received their bachelor's degrees and78.6 percent had received their master's degreesfrom these 91 institutions. It is possible that thereare some implications here for recruiting practicesand policies. (Institutions which granted bachelor'sand master's degrees to the respondents are listedalphabetically by state in Appendix B.)

Respondents were polled as to their employmentprior to receipt of the doctoral degree. Each wasasked to: (a) indicate the title and number of yearsin each position, (b) identify the employers, and (c)indicate the degree of influence each position had uponhis decision to enter the doctoral program. Thefour most recent positions were coded, and the re-sults have been tabulated in Appendix A. This infor-mation provides a basis for several noteworthy ob-servations, one of the foremost of which is the factthat the subjects of this study had completed anaverage of 10.5 years of employment prior to thereceipt of their doctoral degrees.4/ There was adefinite movement of these individuals from teachingpositions toward nonteaching educational positionsthroughout their predoctoral careers. One also notesa migration out of public schools into colleges priorto receipt of the degree. Somewhat less unexpectedwas (a) the movement from noneducational positionstoward educational posts (see Tables 58 and 59) and(b) the steadily increasing influence of "most recent"positions upon the decision to enter the doctoral pro-gram (see Table 60). The Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'sdiffered significantly as to the kind of position heldjust prior to receipt of the doctoral degree ( p < .001).In this instance, the variance apparently arises fromthe fact that a higher proportion of the Ph.D.'s werein other professions and were teaching, whereas theEd.D.'s predominated in nonteaching educationalpositions. These two groups differed also as to thekinds of organizations in which they were employed(p < .001). The number of Ph.D.'s exceeded thenumber of Ed.D.'s in noneducational service organi-zations, business or industry, and colleges. Thepattern was reversed when it came to the number ofeach group employed by the public schools (seeTables 61, 62, 63, and 64). Dissimilarities in typeof position and employing organization were morepronounced for "most recent positions" than for"second most recent positions." The Ph.D.'s seemedto have held two positions less often than had theEd.D.'s.

Predoctoral employment was concentrated ineducation for respondents from all but four of themajor fields. Administration majors reported ahigh proportion (67, percent) of nonteaching educa-tional positions, must of which were probably inschool administration (see Table 65). A high pro-portion of practical arts majors had held teachingpositions prior to receipt of the degree (70.3 per-cent), as had social foundations majors (71.4 per-cent), subject area majors (73.2 percent), and

4/ This figure is an underestimate since only the four most recent positions were coded.

onrInA

26

mathematics or science majors (80.5 percent). Thetabulations indicate that the following majors wereengaged in work outside the field of education: 26percent of those in special education, 28.2 percentof those in educational psychology, 24.3 percent ofthose in guidance, and 54 percent of those in clinicalpsychology. Those who worked in educational ac-tivities distributed themselves in a variety of waysthroughout the academic world (see Table 66). Theproportion employed in public elementary and sec-ondary schools ranged from 65.7 percent for admin-istration majors to 9.9 percent of the higher educa-tion majors. The proportion working in collegeranged from 74.6 percent of the higher educationmajors to 26 percent of the special education majors.Data for the "second most recent position" are foundin Appendix A.

Although 39.4 percent of all respondents heldpublic school positions immediately prior to the re-ceipt of their doctoral degrees, institutions were notalike in the proportion of their siudents who were soemployed at this point in their studies. hl the 38highest producing institutions, the proportion ofgraduates last employed in public school positionsranged from 69.6 percent to 12.1 percent. The basicdifferences between institutions of high and low rankare difficult to isolate. However, these differencesmay be related to the kinds of programs emphasizedby the institutions or to conscious or unconsciousrecruiting practices which prevailed.

Military service claimed about 61.8 percent ofthe sample prior to receipt of the doctorate. Themodal period of service was three years. Approxi-mately 55 percent of these individuals felt that theirmilitary experience was related to the field of educa-tion, and one-half of the group felt that this experi-ence influenced their decisions to enter doctoralprograms (see Tables 67, 68, 69, and 70). TheEd.D. and Ph.D. groups were somewhat dissimilarin the proportion of members who had been in mili-tary service ( p < .10). The greater proportion ofEd.D.'s in service is perhaps explained by thegreater proportion of women in the Ph.D. program.

The factors which individuals considered, orperceived as important, in their choice of a specificuniversity were numerous and seldom operatedsingly. The average number of factors reported byeach individual was four. Foremost among thefactors which had been specified a priori in thequestionnaire was "reputation of individual staffmembers." Approximately one-third of the sampleindicated this to be an important consideration, andan additional 22.8 percent of the replies indicatedthis to be the "most important" consideration. Thisis compatible with the earlier observation that pro-fessors and former professors are highly influentialin prompting individuals to enter the doctoral pro-gram. It was considered by 53 percent that "prox-imity to the university" was a factor intheir choice.Another 36.6 percent indicated that they were in-fluenced in their choice of a doctoral institution by

the fact that they had earned previous graduatecredit at that institution. Availability of scholar-ships, fellowships, and assistantships did not seemto be a particularly strong factor. Voluntary re-sponses pointed to the importance of a university'sreputation and its attractive location. (See Table 71.)It was also of considerable interest to note that nosignificant differences could be discovered in theextent to which the Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s used thefollowing categories to account for their institutionalchoices: similarity of departmental philosophy topersonal values, reputation of staff members, reputa-tion of the university, and reputation of the .depart-ment.

There were differences, however, in the mannerin which graduates of the various institutions usedthese categories. For example, in one of the 38highest producing institutions, 97.5 percent of theindividuals checked the proximity factor; in another,only 20 percent of the graduates thought this an im-portant consideration. The universities whose grad-uates most often checked proximity were frequentlylocated in large cities or within large rrietropolitanareas, but some were located in small communities.The universities whose graduates checked proximityleast often were frequently located in relativelysmall cities, but some were located in urban areas.The total production of graduates differed greatlyamong institutions whose graduates attached impor-tance to proximity. From this, one could not con-clude that preference for universities in large metro-politan areas is always based upon proximity factors;prestige, favorable geographic location, and similarreasons may also influence these decisions. Onecan conclude, however, that the total production ofgraduates remains small when institutions in smallercommunities are selected primarily on the basis ofproximity.

Responses of persons in each of the major fieldswere compared on four of the categories having to dowith important considerations in the choice of a doc-toral institution. Special education majors seemedleast concerned with similarity of departmentalphilosophy to personal values (16 percent); subjectarea majors and physical education majors weremost concerned with this factor (see Table 72).Physical education majors expressed greatest in-terest in staff reputation (79.4 percent); guidancemajors used this category least often (45.7 percent)(see Table 73). Student personnel administrationfrequently wrote in the item "reputation of theuniversity"; special education majors seemed leastconcerned with this factor (see Table 74). Thecategory of "departmental reputation" was some-times volunteered. A summary of these responses,by major fields, is presented in Appendix A.

At two points in the vestionnaire, respondentswere requested to rate the influence of chance intheir educational career: once in regard to the factof their doctoral study, and once relative to thechoice of the doctoral institution. In both instances

finflgr7;

The operation of chance was vigorously denied, butmore so relative to the fact of their doctoral study(see Tables 75 and 76). At first glance, these re-sults did not seem compatible with other data. 'Therespondents, in general, came from lower middle-class socioeconomic backgrounds; and, in general,their parents' education was concluded prior to highschool graduation. Many admitted that they had beenfortunate to lib. ve been able to take advantage of the"GI Bill." A large group did not even considerdoctoral study until very late in their educational-vocational careers. All these facts seemed to denycareful planning and deliberate action. On the otherhand, however, the responses appear more reason-able when other facts are considered. It is highlyprobable that the chance items were answered froma perspective which developed after the program wasdeemed a possibility and while means for realizingthe possibility were being sought. From this pointon, there is much evidence to indicate careful plan-ning. For instance, among the list of materialfactors enabling them to enter the program, at least

27

two items were always checked. Usually threesources of income were employed simultaneouslyduring residency; this requires planning. Informationfrom the supplementary form indicated patternssuch as one year in school followed by two years ofworking, or, six consecutive summers in residence.In some cases, the individual sought a teaching posi-tion in or near the doctoral institution. All of thesefacts indicated careful planning, but only after a point.Chance may have operated to bring the goal intofocus, but once there, planning dominated. Onesmall bit of positive evidence for this hypothesis isprovided by a rank order correlation. Institutionswere ranked on the basis of student responses asto the amount of planning which took place in theselection of a setting for doctoral study. They werethen ranked again, this time in reverse order, as tothe importance of proximity considerations for theirstudents. The correlation between the two sets ofranks was a .32 which may be interpreted to meanthat as proximity became less important, planningbecame more important.

TABLE 29.--PERIOD OF LIFE DURING WHICH THE DOCTORAL DEGREEWAS FIRST CONSIDERED, BY PH.D.'S AND ED.D.'S

Period of lifePh.D. Ed.D.

Number Percent Number Percent1 2 3 4 5

During high school 56 6.5% 93 5.5%During undergraduate program 184 21.3 206 12.3During post-bachelor's teaching . . . . 41 4.7 98 5.8During other post-bachelor's work . . 34 3.9 46 2.7During master's program 284 32.8 528 31.5During post-master's teaching 152 17.6 396 23.6During other post-master's work . . . 54 6.2 129 7.7During post-master's graduate study. 55 6.4 181 10.9No response 5 0.6 0 0.0

Total 865 100.0% 1677 100.0%

TABLE 30.--PERIOD OF LIFE DURING WHICH THE DOCTORAL MAJOR WASFIRST CONSIDERED, BY PH.D.'S AND ED.D.'S

Period of lifePh.D. Ed.D.


During high school 78 9.0% 168 10.0%During undergraduate program . . . . . 213 24.6 285 17.0During post-bachelor's teaching . . . . 69 8.0 193 11.5During other post-bachelor's work . . 47 5.4 92 5.5During master's program 192 22.2 307 18.3During post-master's teaching 102 11.8 233 13.9During other post-master's work . . 41 4.7 96 5.7During post-master's graduate study . 65 7.5 164 9.8Noresponse . . . . . .... . . 58 6.8 139 8.3

Total ..... . . . . . . 865 100.0% 1677 100.0%

28

TABLE 31.--COMPARISON OF PERIODS DURING WHICH THE DOCTORALDEGREE AND THE DOCTORAL MAJOR WERE FIRST CONSIDER EDa

First consideredworking towarddoctoral degree

First considereddoctoral ma 'or

Period of life Percent Percent1 2 3

During high school 5.9% 9.7%During undergraduate program 15.3 19.6During post-bachelor's teaching 5.5 10.3During other post-bachelor's work 3.1 5.5During master's program 31.9 19.6During post-master's teaching 21.6 13.2During other post-master's work 7.2 5.4During post-master's graduate study 9.3 9.0No response 0.3 7.7

Total 100.0% 100.0%

aNumber equals 2542

TABLE 32.--INDIVIDUALS WHO INFLUENCED THE DECISION TO ENTERTHE DOCTORAL PROGRAM, BY LEVELS OF IMPORTANCE

Influential individualsA significant The most significant

factorb factorNumber Percent Number Percent

1 2 3 4 5

Professional colleagues.. 947 37.3% 255 10.0%Spouse 588 23.1 263 10.3Parents 272 10.7 53 2.1Other relatives 112 4.4 18 0.7Former professors 729 28.7 531 20.9Employer at that time. . . 357 14.0 175 6.9Acquaintances 258 10.1 49 1.9Other--specifya

Major advisor 18 0.7 28 1.1Self or no one 172 6.8 58 2.3A specific professor. . . 27 1.1 45 1.8Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 1.9 48 1.9

aThe categories under "other" were developed as follows: Approximately300 questionnaires, selected in no order, were searched, and all responses in the"other" category were listed. A committee of three judges then attempted to clas-sify them into as many categories as seemed necessary to reduce the number ofresponses in the remaining 'other" category to an arbitrary minimum of 5%. Anumber of items in this questionnaire are of this same type, and the same procedurewas followed for each It should be noted that responses which were "written in"(i.e., those responses recorded in the category "other") are not to be consideredin the same light as are those which were defined a priori. The fact that 172 in-dividuals voluntarily wrote in "self" or "no one" may be of the same order as thefact that 729 individuals checked the previously defined category of "former pro-fessors."

',The categories "a significant factor" and "the most significant factor" aremutually exclusive (i.e., if the individual responded to a given,item, he describedthe importance of that item as "a significant factor" or as "the most significantfactor. "). This procedure was observed throughout the questionnaire.

0003'7

29

TABLE, 33.-- INFLUENCE OF SPOUSES ON THE DECISION TO ENTERTHE DOCTORAL PROGRAM, BY DEGREE RECEIVED

Ed.D. Ph.D.Rating of factor Number Percent Number 2ercent

1 2 3 4 5

A significant factorThe most significant factor . .

432190

25.8%11.3

15673

18.0%8.4

TABLE 34.--INFLUENCE OF FORMER EMPLOYERS ON THE DECISIONTO ENTER THE DOCTORAL PROGRAM, BY DEGREE RECEIVED

Ed.D. Ph.D.Rating of factor Number Percent Number Percent

1 2 3 4 5

A significant factorThe most significant factor . .

261122

15.6%7.3

9653

11.1%6.1

TABLE 35.--PERSONAL MOTIVES, BY LEVELS OF IMPORTANCE,IN THE DECISION TO ENTER THE DOCTORAL PROGRAM

Personal motives

A significantmotive

The most significantmotive


Desire to work with college students . . . . 675 26.6% 168 6.6%Desire to specialize in a given field 773 30.4 210 8.3Desire for prestige 846 33.3 61 2.4Desire for advance in rank 816 32.1 98 3.9Desire for new knowledge . . . . 1312 51.6 363 14.3Desire to increase earning capacity 1159 45.6 141 5.5Desire to remain well qualified in a field . 1047 41.2 348 13.7Desire for new type position 653 25.7 193 7.6Other--specify

A desire to aid in the growth of theprofession as a whole, some specificphase of it, or some problem in it . . 54 2.1 39 1.5

Other 90 3.5 68 2.7

TABLE 36.--PERSONAL MOTIVES IN THE DECISION TO ENTER THE DOCTORAL PROGRAM,BY ITEMS ON WHICH ED.D.'S AND PH.D.'S DIFFERED

Personal motives Rating of motivesEd.D. Ph.D.

Number Percent Number Percent

1 2 3 4 5 6

Desire to specialize A significant factor 477 28.4% 296 34.2%The most significant factor 129 7.7 81 9.4

Desire for advance in rank A significant factor 571 34.0 245 28.3The most significant factor 67 4.0 31 3.6

Desire to increase earning ' A significant factor 750 44.7 409 47.3capacity The most significant factor 109 6.5 32 3.7

Desire to remain well A significant factor 722 43.1 325 37.6qualified The most significant factor 241 14.4 107 12.4

00.038

30

TABLE 37.--MATERIAL FACTORS WHICH MADE THE DOCTORAL PROGRAM POSSIBLE,BY LEVELS OF IMPORTANCE

Material factorsA significant

factorThe most significant

factorNumber Percent Number Percent

1 2 3 4 5

Unexpired "GI Bill" 533 21.0% 512 20.1%Awarding of a scholarship, fellowship, etc. 490 19.3 262 10.3Savings 724 28.5 142 5.6Leave with pay 209 8.2 86 3.4Gifts or inheritances 93 3.7 38 1.5Other--specify

Wife able to work 139 5.5 99 3.9Could work concurrently with program 218 8.6 134 5.3Employed at university 125 4.9 73 2.9Grants or awards 22 0.9 13 0.5Loans 53 2.1 31 1.2Investment income 11 0.4 8 0.3None or nothing 94 3.7 8 0.3State benefits 25 1.0 6 0.2Other 111 4.4 53 2.1

TABLE 38.- -TYPE OF SECONDARY SCHOOLS ATTENDED

Type of school Number Percent1 2 3

Public 2297 90.4%Private, nondenominational 75 3.0Private, denominational 168 6.5No response 2 0.1

Total 2542 100.0%

TABLE 39.--SIZE OF SECONDARY SCHOOL GRADUATING CLASSES

Size of class Number Percent1 2 3

1-19 214 8.4%20-39 347 13.740-59 309 12.260-99 257 10.1100-199 400 15.7200-499 513 20.2Over 500 487 19.2No response 15 0.5

Total 2542 100.0%

31

TABLE 40.--TYPE OF INSTITUTIONS GRANTINGTHE BACCALAUREATE DEGREE

Type institution Number Percent1 2 3

Liberal arts and general 69 2.7%Teacher preparatory 282 11.1Liberal arts, general, and teacher preparatory. 600 23.6Professional and technical 17 0.7Professional, technical, and teacher preparatory . 49 1.9Liberal arts and general with one or two

professional schools 183 7.2Liberal arts and general with three or more

professional schools 1223 48.1No response or unclassifiable

(including foreign schools) 119 4.7

Total 2542 100.0%

TABLE 41.--TYPE OF INSTITUTIONS GRANTING THEBACCALAUREATE DEGREE TO ED.D.'S AND PH.D.'S

Type of institutionEd.D. Ph.D.


Liberal arts and general 43 2.6% 26 3.0%Teacher preparatory 220 13.1 62 7.2Liberal arts, general, and teacher preparatory . . . 410 24.4 190 22.0Professional and technical 6 0.4 11 1.3Professional, technical, and teacher preparatory. . 30 1.8 19 2.2Liberal arts and general with one or two

professional schools 120 7.2 63 7.3Liberal arts and general with three or more

professional schools 797 47.5 426 49.2No response or unclassifiable

(including foreign schools) 51 3.0 68 7.9Total , 1677 100.0% 865 100.0%

TABLE 42.--KINDS OF CONTROL OVER THE INSTITUTIONSGRANTING THE BACCALAUREATE DEGREE

Kinds of control Number Percent1 2 3

City or municipal 114 4.5%Church controlled 451 17.7National or federal government 5 0.2Private 565 22.2Proprietory 0 0.0State government 1282 50.4Terriforial government. . . . . . . . . . 4 0.2No response (including foreign schools) 121 4.8

Total . . . . . . . . . . ..... . 2542 100.0%

00940

TA

BL

E 4

3.-

-KIN

D O

F C

ON

TR

OL

OV

ER

TH

E I

NST

ITU

TIO

NS

GR

AN

TIN

GT

HE

BA

CC

AL

AU

RE

AT

E D

EG

RE

E T

O P

H.D

.'S A

ND

ED

.D.'S

TA

BL

E 4

4.--

UN

DE

RG

RA

DU

AT

E M

AJO

RS

Maj

or f

ield

Num

ber

Perc

ent

Kin

ds o

f co

ntro

lPh

.D.

Ed.

D.

12

3N

umbe

rPe

rcen

tN

umbe

rPe

rcen

tE

duca

tion

837

32.9

%1

23

45

Bio

logi

cal s

cien

ce88

3.5

City

or

mun

icip

al. .

..

.66

7.6%

482.

9%Ph

ysic

al s

cien

ce28

911

.4C

hurc

h co

ntro

lled

153

17.7

298

17.8

Soci

al s

cien

ce69

127

.2N

atio

nal o

r fe

dera

l gov

ernm

ent

20.

23

0.2

Hum

aniti

es39

715

.6Pr

ivat

e20

523

.736

021

.5T

echn

ical

or

voca

tiona

l..

.17

66.

9Pr

opri

etor

y0

0.0

00.

0O

ther

311.

2St

ate

gove

rnm

ent

369

42.7

913

54.4

No

resp

onse

331.

3T

erri

tori

al g

over

nmen

t0

0.0

40.

2T

otal

2542

100.

0%N

o re

spon

se (

incl

udin

g fo

reig

n sc

hool

s70

8.1

51_

3.0

Tot

al86

510

0.0%

1677

100.

0%

TA

BL

E 4

5.--

UN

DE

RG

RA

DU

AT

E M

AJO

RS

CO

MPA

RE

D W

ITH

DO

CT

OR

AL

MA

JOR

S

Doc

tora

l

maj

ors

Und

ergr

adua

te m

ajor

s

Edu

catio

nB

iolo

gica

lsc

ienc

eP

hysi

cal

scie

nce

Soc

ial

scie

nce

ities

Tec

hnic

al o

rvo

catio

nal

Oth

erN

ore

spon

seN

umbe

r

12

34

56

78

910

Spe

cial

edu

catio

n40

.0%

6.0%

2.0%

18.0

%26

.0%

8.0%

...50

Ach

ninI

smat

ion

33.8

1.9

15.3

28.5

12.1

6.0

Ei%

1.3%

621

Cur

ricul

um47

.04.

33.

522

.615

.74.

31.

7...

115

Phy

sica

l edu

catio

n76

.65.

61.

97.

5.9

4.7

.91.

910

7P

ract

ical

art

s41

.41.

6.8

3.1

3.9

43.0

6.3

...12

8S

ocia

l fou

ndat

ions

17.5

1.6

4.8

47.6

23.8

3.2

1.6

...63

Sub

ject

are

as ..

.....

... .

28.7

1.8

17.1

48.2

3.7

.6...

164

Mat

hem

atic

s or

sci

ence

16.9

24.7

50.6

3.9

1.3

...2.

677

Edu

catio

nal p

sych

olog

y..

23.5

6.7

10.1

40.9

13.4

2.0

.72.

714

9

Sec

onda

ry e

duca

tion

..24

.24.

024

.225

.313

.18.

11.

0...

99E

lem

enta

ry e

duca

tion

...53

.11.

57.

721

.511

.51.

53.

1!

" '3

Hig

her

educ

atio

n31

.01.

414

.119

.721

.18.

5E

i2.

871

Gui

danc

e25

.42.

99.

841

.613

.93.

51.

21.

717

3C

linic

al p

sych

olog

y12

.23.

110

.258

.210

.22.

02.

02.

098

Stu

dent

per

sonn

el a

dmin

istr

atio

n29

.52.

313

.636

.49.

14.

5...

4.5

44

33

TABLE 46.--TYPE OF INSTITUTIONS GRANTING THE MASTER'S DEGREE

Type of institution Number Percent1 2 3

Liberal arts and general 22 C.9%Teacher preparatory 91 3.6Liberal arts, general, and teacher preparatory . . 104 4.1Professional and technical 13 0.5Professional, technical, and teacher preparatory . 68 2.7Liberal arts and general with one or two

professional schools 65 2.6Liberal arts and general with three or more

professional schools 2071 81.5No response or unclassifiable


Total 2542 100.0%

TABLE 47.--KINDS OF CONTROL OVER THE INSTITUTIONSGRANTING THE MASTER'S DEGREE

Kinds of control Number Percent1 2 3

City or municipal 55 2.2%Church controlled 182 7.2National or federal government 3 0.1Private 1002 39.4Proprietory 2 0.1State government 1189 46.8Territorial government 0 0.0No response or unclassifiable


Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . 2542 100.0%

TABLE 48.--PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS WHO RECEIVED THE BACHELOR'S, MASTER'S,AND DOCTORAL DEGREES IN EACH OF THE VARIOUS TYPES OF INSTITUTIONS

Type of institutionBachelor's

degreeMaster's

degreeDoctor'sdegree

1 2 3 4

Liberal arts and general 2.7% 0.9% 0.2%Teacher preparatory 11.1 3.6 1.9Liberal arts, general, and teacher preparatory . .' . . . . 23.6 4.1 0.0Professional, technical, and teacher preparatory . . . . . 1.9 2.7 3.1Liberal arts general with, one or two professional

schools . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . ... . ....... 7.2 2.6 0.1Liberal arts and general with three or more

professional schools 48.1 81.5 94.7All other 5.4 4.6 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0% 100 0% 100 0%

00042

34

TABLE 49.--PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS WHO RECEIVED THEBACHELOR'S, MASTER'S, AND DOCTORATE IN INSTITUTIONS

UNDER EACH OF THE VARIOUS KINDS OF CONTROL

Kinds of controlBachelor's

degreeMaster's

degreeDoctor'sdegne

1 2 3 4

Private control 22.2% 39.4% 48.9%State control 50.4 46.8 47.6Church control 17.7 7.2 3.3Other 9.7 6.6 0.2

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

TABLE 50.--MAJORS AT THE MASTER'S DEGREE LEVEL

Major field Number Percent1 2 3

Education 1742 68.5%Biological science 25 1.0Physical science 64 2.5Social science 359 14.1Humanities 179 7.0Technical or vocational 75 3.0Other 6 0.2No response 92 3.7

Total 2542 100.0%

TABLE 51.--PREPARATION OF A MASTER'S THESIS

Response Number Percent1 2 3

Master's thesis written 1191 46.8%Master's thesis not written 1346 53.0No response 5 0.2

Total 2542 100.0%

TABLE 52.--ACQUISITION OF THE SIXTH- YEAR DEGREE


Sixth-year degree received 38 1.5%Sixth-year degree not received 2494 97.7Uncertain 20 0.8

Total 2542 100.0%

35

TABLE 53.--CHANGE OF INSTITUTION BETWEEN DEGREES

Institutional attendance reported Number Percent1 2 3

Bachelor's, master's, and doctor's degrees grantedby the same institution 335 13.2%

Master's and doctor's degrees granted by the sameinstitution 792 31.2

Bachelor's and master's degrees granted by the sameinstitution 477 18 .8

Bachelor's and doctor's degrees granted by the sameinstitution 53 2.1

All degrees granted by different institutions 823 32.4Unclassifiable 62 2.3

Total 2542 100.0%

TABLE 54.--CHANGE OF INSTITUTION BETWEEN DEGREES, BY DOCTORAL MAJOR

Master's Bachelor's Bachelor'sand and and All degrees

AU degrees doctorate master's doctorate at differ-Major :field at same at same at same at same ent No response Number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Special education 16.0% 26.0% 20.0% 2.0% 32.0% 4.0% 50Administration 14.8 29.0 20.1 1.8 32.2 2.1 621Curriculum 12.2 32.2 21.7 33.9 115

Physical education 13.1 29.9 22.4 2.8 30.8 .9 107Practical arts ..... 16.4 24.2 22.7 1.6 35.2 128Social foundations 14.3 27.0 22.2 33.3 2.2 63

Subject areas 9.1 36.6 17.7 1.2 34.8 .6 164Mathematics or science 10.4 40.3 22.1 5.2 18.2 3.9 77Educational psychology 18.1 29.5 18.1 1.3 28.9 4.0 149

Secondary education 17.2 30.3 18.2 3.0 31.3 99Elementary education 9.2 34.6 18.5 3,8 30.8 2.1 130Higher education 5.6 26.8 21.1 1.4 42.3 2.8 71

Guidance 12.1 32.4 15.6 2.3 35.8 1.7 173Clinical psychology 10.2 28.6 18.4 2.0 31.6 9.2 98Student personnel administration 6.8 45.5 15.9 27.3 4.5 44

TABLE 55.--CHANGE OF INSTITUTION BETWEEN DEGREES, BY PH.D.'S AND ED.D.'S

Institutional attendance reportedPh.D. Ed.D.


Bachelor's, master's, and doctor's degrees grantedby the same institution . . . . .. . ....... . . . . . 127 14.7% 208 12.4%

Master's and doctor's degrees granted by the sameinstitution 302 34.9 490 29.2

Bachelor's and master's degrees granted by the sameinstitution 149 17.2 328 19.6

Bachelor's and doctor's degrees granted by the sameinstitution 22 2.5 31 1.8

All degrees granted by different institutions 233 26.9 590 35.2Unclassifiable 32 3.8 30 1.8

Total 865 100.0% 1677 100.0%

00044

36

TABLE 56.--YEAR IN WHICH THEBACCALAUREATE DEGREE WAS RECEIVED

TABLE 57.--YEAR IN WHICH THEMASTER'S DEGREE WAS RECEIVED

Year Number Year Number Year Number Year Number

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

1912 1 1938 108 1922 1' 1943 201918 1 193: 131 1924 1 1944 421919 1 1940 105 1925 1 1945 491920 2 1941 120 1926 1 1946 981921 1 1942 143 1927 3 1947 1721922 13 1943 120 1928 4 1948 1821923 5 1944 47 1929 5 1949 2121924 9 1945 50 1930 8 1950 2641925 12 1946 92. 1931 9 1951 2391926 12 1947 154 1932 11 1952 2021927 17 1948 216 1933 20 1953 1721928 25 1949 204 1934 15 1954 1201929 34 1950 168 1935 21 1955 981930 39 1951 100 1936 25 1956 501931 . . 42 1952 62 1937 41 1957 271932 44 1953 33 1938 51 1958 131933 58 1954 17 1939 53 No response1934 72 1955 7 1940 64 or degree. 1131935 80 1956 1 1941 751936 86 No response 25 1942 60 Total. . . . 25421937 85 Total. . . . 2542

TABLE 58.--PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS IN EDUCATIONAL ANDNONEDUCATIONAL POSITIONS, BY RECENCY OF THE PREDOCTORAL POSITION

Type positionMost

recentposition

Secondmost recent

position

Thirdmost recent

position

Fourthmost recent

position

1 2 3 4 5

Educational, teacher. . . . 46.1% 49.4% 53.5% 56.6%Educational, nonteacher. . 40.8 34.2 25.4 19.1Noneducational 13.1 16.4 21.1 24.3

Total . . . .. . . . 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

TAB_ LE 59.--PERCENTCOLLEGES, ETC.,

OF RESPONDENTS EMPLOYED BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS,BY RECENCY OF THE PREDOCTORAL POSITION.

Type of organizationMost

recentposition

Secondmost recent'

position

Thirdmost recent

position

Fourthmost recent

position

1 2 3 4 5

Public school 39.4% 50.7% 54.9% 57.5%College or university.. . . 46.8 32.3 23.3 17.6Other....... . . . . . . . 13.8 17.0 21.8 24.9

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

09045

37

TABLE 60.--DEGREE OF INFLUENCE OF POSITIONS UPON THE DECISION TOENTER THE DOCTORAL PROGRAM, BY RECENCY OF THE

PREDOCTORAL POSITION

Degree of influenceMost

recentposition

Secondmost recent

position

Thirdmost recent

position

Fourthmost recent

position

1 2 3 4 5

Highly influential 46.1% 24.5% 14.4% 9.0%Of considerable influence. 22.5 25.4 19.6 14.8Moderately influential . . . 13.2 21.0 22.0 18.1Of little influence 7.1 13.6 19.1 20.8Of no influence 11.1 15.4 24.9 37.3

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

TABLE 61.--TYPE OF "MOST RECENT" PREDOCTORAL POSITIONSHELD BY PH.D.'S AND ED.D.'S

Type of positionPh.D. Ed.D.


Professional, semiprofessional,or managerial 180 20.8% 123 7.3%

Education, teacher 424 49.0 725 43.2Education, nonteacher 233 25.8 794 47.3All other 13 1.5 10 0.7No response or position 25 2.9 25 1.5

Total 865 100.0% 1677 100.0%

TABLE 62.--TYPE OF ORGANIZATION WHICH EMPLOYED PH.D.'S ANDED.D.'S IN "MOST RECENT" PREDOCTORAL POSITIONS

Type of organizationPh.D. Ed.D.


1 2 3 4 5

Elementary or high school 221 25.5% 759 45.3%College or university 434 50.2 730 43.5Service organization 139 16.1 139 8.3Business or industry 41 4.7 25 1.5No response or position 30 3.5 24 1.4

Total 865 100.0% 1677 100.0%

TABLE 63.--TYPE OF "SECOND MOST RECENT" PREDOCTORALPOSITIONS HELD BY PH.D.'S AND ED.D.'S

Type of positionPh.D. Ed.D.


1 2 3 4 5

Professional, semiprofessional,or managerial 171 19.8% 150 8.5%

Education, teacher 365 42.2 734 43.8Education, nonteacher 172 19.9 588 35.1All other , 22 2.5 23 1.4No response or position 135 15.6 182 10.8

Total 865 100.0% 1677 100.0%

TA

BL

E 6

4.--

TY

PE O

FO

RG

AN

IZA

TIO

N W

HIC

H E

MPL

OY

ED

PH.D

.'S A

ND

ED

.D.'S

IN

"SE

CO

ND

MO

STR

EC

EN

T"

PRE

DO

CT

OR

AL

PO

SIT

ION

S

Ph.D

.E

d.D

.

Typ

e of

org

aniz

atio

nN

umbe

rPe

rcen

tN

umbe

rPe

rcen

t

12

34

5

Ele

men

tary

or

high

scho

ol26

730

.9%

860

51.3

%

Col

lege

or

univ

ersi

ty27

631

.944

226

.4

Serv

ice

orga

niza

tion.

138

16.0

134

8.0

Bus

ines

s or

indu

stry

475.

459

3.5

No

resp

onse

or

posi

tion.

..

..

.13

715

.818

210

.9

865

100.

0%16

7710

0.0%

Tot

al

TA

BL

E 6

5.--

TY

PE O

F "M

OST

RE

CE

NT

" PR

ED

OC

TO

RA

LPO

SIT

ION

S H

EL

D, B

Y M

AJO

RFI

EL

DS

Typ

eof

posi

tion

Pro

fess

iona

l,E

duca

tion,

Edu

catio

n,A

ll

Maj

or fi

eld

man

ager

ial

teac

her

nont

each

erot

her

12

3.

45

Spe

cial

edu

catio

n26

.0%

44.0

%28

.0%

2.0%

50

Adm

inis

trat

ion

4.5

26.9

67.3

0.2%

1.1

621

Cur

ricul

um1.

72.

611

5

760

.035

.7

Phy

sica

l edu

catio

n8.

461

.727

.11.

90.

910

7

Pra

ctic

al a

s5.

570

.322

.61.

612

8

arts

19.0

Soc

ial f

ound

atio

ns6.

371

.45:

363

Sub

ject

are

as4.

373

.220

.70.

61.

216

4

Mat

hem

atic

s or

sci

ence

80.5

16.9

1.3

1.3

77

2.0

3.4

149

Edu

catio

nal p

sych

olog

y26.2

45.6

22.8

Sec

onda

ry e

duca

tion

1.0

58.6

37.4

3.0

99

Ele

men

tary

edu

catio

n3.

149

.243

.83.

913

0

Hig

her

educ

atio

n9.

946

.539

.41.

42.

871

43.9

4.2

983.

90.

60.

617

3

Gui

danc

e23

.731

.2

Clin

ical

psy

chol

ogy

51.0

21.4

20.4

3.0

Stu

dent

per

sonn

el a

dmin

istr

atio

n11

.413

.668

.22.

34.

544

No

resp

onse

6

Num

ber

7

TA

BLE

66.

--T

YP

E O

F O

RG

AN

IZA

TIO

N W

HIC

H E

MP

LOY

ED

RE

SP

ON

DE

NT

S IN

"MO

ST

RE

CE

NT

"P

RE

DO

CT

OR

AL

PO

SIT

ION

S, B

Y M

AJO

R F

IELD

S

Maj

or fi

eld

Typ

eof

orga

niza

tion

Pub

lic s

choo

lC

olle

geS

ervi

ce o

rgan

i-za

tion

Bus

ines

s o:

-in

dust

ryN

o re

spon

seN

umbe

r

12

34

56

7

Spe

cial

edu

catio

n44

.0%

26.0

%26

.0%

2.0%

2.0%

50

Adm

inis

trat

ion

65.7

26.1

5.3

1.8

1.1

621

Cur

ricul

um44

.347

.06.

12.

611

5

Phy

sica

l edu

catio

n18

.771

.07.

51.

90.

910

7

Pra

ctic

al a

rts

20.3

70.3

7.0

0.8

1.6

128

Soc

ial f

ound

atio

ns34

.952

.47.

91.

63.

263

Sub

ject

are

as25

.068

.93.

01.

81.

316

4

Mat

hem

atic

s or

sci

ence

39.0

59.7

1.3

77

Edu

catio

nal p

sych

olog

y25

.546

.317

.47.

43,

414

9

Sec

onda

ry e

duca

tion

47.5

47.5

2.0

...3.

099

Ele

men

tary

edu

catio

n53

.839

.20.

82.

33.

913

0

Hig

her

educ

atio

n9.

974

.68.

54.

22.

871

Gui

danc

e30

.644

.519

.74.

01.

217

3

Clin

ical

psy

chol

ogy

Stu

dent

per

sonn

el a

dmin

istr

atio

n14

.331

.829

..652

.345

.911

.45.

15.

14.

598 44

TA

BLE

67.

--IN

CID

EN

CE

OF

MIL

ITA

RY

SE

RV

ICE

TA

BLE

68.

--D

UR

AT

ION

OF

MIL

ITA

RY

SER

VIC

E

Res

pons

eN

uiab

erPe

rcen

tL

engt

h of

ser

vice

Of

tota

l sam

ple

Of

thos

e in

ser

vice

Perc

ent

Perc

ent

Num

ber

12

3

Mili

tary

exp

erie

nce

1570

61.3

%1

23

4

No

mili

tary

exp

erie

nce

..

.88

434

.8O

ne y

ear

5.5%

8.9%

139

No

resp

onse

883.

4T

wo

year

s13

.421

.934

1

Thr

ee y

ears

35.3

35.3

550

Tot

al25

4210

0-07

0Fo

ur y

ears

21.6

21.6

336

Five

yea

rs8.

18.

112

6

Six

year

s1.

22.

031

Seve

n ye

ars

0.4

0.6

10

Eig

ht o

r m

ore

year

s. .

0.2

0.4

6St

ill in

ser

vice

0.7

1.2

17

No

serv

ice

38.8

0.0

986

= .....,

1....

-T

otal

100.

0%10

0.0%

2542

C

40

TABLE 69.--INCIDENCE OF EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCEWHILE IN MILITARY SERVICE

Response Of totalOf thoseresponding

Percent Percent Number

1 2 3 4

Service included education-relatedexperience 34.3% 54.8% 873

Service included no education-relatedexperience 28.3 45.2 720

No response 37.4 0.0 949

Total 100.0% 100.0% 2542

TABLE 70.--DEGREE OF INFLUENCE OF EDUCATIONAL MILITARYEXPERIENCE ON DECISION TO ENTER THE DOCTORAL PROGRAM

Degree of influence Of totalOf those

respondingPercent Percent Number

1 2 3 4

Highly influential, of decisive importance . . 2.6% 7.1% 67Of considerable influence 7.3 19.5 185Mo....'crately influential 10.0 26.8 254Of little influence 9.5 25.4 241Of no influence 7.9 21.2 202No response or service 62.7 0.0 1593

Total 100.0% 100.0% 2542

TABLE 71.--FACTORS CONSIDERED IN CHOICE OF DOCTORAL INSTITUTION,BY LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE

Factors consideredA significant


factorNumber Percent Number Percent

1 2 3 4 5

Availability of housing 347 13.7% 43 1.7%City provided opportunity for supplementary income. . . . 232 9.1 52 2.0Proximity of the university 947 37.3 400 15.7Similarity of departmental philosophy to personal values. 629 24.7 190 7.5Availability of assistantships, fellowships, etc. 463 18.2 233 9.2Had earned graduate credit at this institution 724 28.5 207 8.1Nature of initial interviews 347 13.7 89 3.5Reputation of individual staff members 1014 39.9 530 22.8Other

Reputation of the university 201 7.9 173 6.8Reputation of the department 71 2.8 54 2.1Could earn credit while working because of the nature

of the residence requirements 15 0.6 14 0.6Availability of an off-campus program 7 0.3 5 0.2Attractiveness of the location 125 4.9 41 1.6An economic factor not accounted for in the

above categories 73 2.9 54 2.1Availability of the program 104 4.1 100 3.9Employed full time at university 17 0.7 18 0.1Other 103 4.1 70 2.8

00,049

41

TABLE 72.--SIMILARITY OF DEPARTMENTAL PHILOSOPHY TO PERSONAL VALUESAS A FACTOR IN CHOICE OF DOCTORAL INSTITUTION, BY LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE

TO MAJORS IN THE VARIOUS FIELDS

Major fieldA significant


factor No response Number

1 2 3 4 5

Special education 14.0% 2.0% 84.0% 50Administration 23.0 6.0 71.0 621Curriculum 28.7 12.2 59.1 115Physical education 36.4 7.5 56.1 107Practical arts 28.9 6.3 64.8 128Social foundations 27.0 14.3 58.7 63Subject areas 34.1 9.8 56.1 164Mathematics or science 20.8 7.8 71.4 77Educational psychology 22.1 4.7 73.2 149Secondary education 19.2 10.1 70.7 99Elementary education 23.8 6.9 69.2 130Higher education 15.5 7.0 77.5 71Guidance 22.5 4.6 72.8 173Clinical psychology 24.5 5.1 70.4 98Student personnel administration 25.0 4.5 70.5 44

TABLE 73.--REPUTATION OF STAFF AS A FACTOR IN CHOICE OF DOCTORAL INSTITUTION,BY LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE TO MAJORS IN THE VARIOUS FIELDS



factor No response Number1 2 3 4 5

Special education 26.0% 40.0% 34.0% 50Administration 42.5 24.0 33.5 621Curriculum 44.3 28.7 27.0 115Physical education 48.6 30.8 20.6 107Practical arts 42.2 39.8 18.0 128Social foundations 28.6 30.2 41.2 63Subject areas 36.6 21.3 42.1 164Mathematics or science 39.0 15.6 45.4 77Educational psychology 32.2 16.1 51.7 149Secondary education 41.4 21.2 37.4 99Elementary education 39.2 26.9 33.9 130Higher education 39.4 12.7 47.9 71Guidance 31.8 13.9 54.3 173Clinical psychology 42.9 13.3 43.8 98Student personnel administration. 45.5 27.3 27.2 44

0005.0

42

TABLE 74.--REPUTATION OF THE UNIVERSITY AS A FACTOR (WRITTEN IN) IN CHOICE OFDOCTORAL INSTITUTION, BY LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE TO MAJORS IN THE VARIOUS FIELDS



factor No response Number

1 2 3 4 5


TABLE 75.--CHANCE AS A FACTOR IN THE DECISION TOENTER A DOCTORAL PROGRAM

Influence of chance Number Percent

1 2 3

Pure chance 20 0.8%Mostly chance 127 5.0Part chance, part planning 753 29.6Some planning 392 16.4Careful planning and deliberate action 1243 48.9No response 7 0.3

Total 2542 100.0%

TABLE 76.--CHANCE AS A FACTOR IN CHOICE OF DOCTORAL INSTITUTION

Influence of chance Number Percent1 2 3

Pure chanceMostly chance

60181

2.4%7.1

Part chance, part planning 638 25.1'Some planning 478 18.8Careful planning and deliberate action 1121 44.1No response

I64 2.5

-;2542 100.0%Total

00051

Chapter V

PURSUIT OF THE DEGREEAmong the numerous factors which affect pur-

suit of the doctoral degree in education, or in anyfield for that matter, is the time required to com-plete the total program. This includes various sub-phases such as languages and the dissertation.

For approximately 60 percent of the respondentsof this study, there was no foreign language require-ment. For the group in which languages was a re-quirement, it seemed to have constituted no majorhurdle. According to Table 77, the median numberof months of concentrated study required to pass thelanguage examinations was five; one-half of the groupspent two to nine months studying for the require-ment, and one-fourth of these people apparentlyrequired less than two months to clear this hurdle.

Completion of the dissertation was another mat-ter. The median length of time required for itscompletion was 16 months, with 50 percent of thepersons completing their dissertations in 12 to 24months. There was no difference in either themedian or the interquartile range for the. Ed.D.'sand Ph.D.'s. The time spent on some dissertationsamounted to more than 99 months (see Table 78).Marginal comments were numerous on this item andgenerally referred to such things as the difficultyof obtaining data, the difficulty of obtaining commit-tee agreement on a problem, absence of an adviser,change of adviser, and communications difficulties.Data from the supplementary forms revealed thatthe thesis was entirely completed in residence in31.9 percent of the cases; that it was partially com-pleted in residence in 41.5 percent of the cases; andthat all of the work on it was accomplished awayfrom the university in 24.9 percent of the cases.(Positive determination on this factor could not beascertained for the balance of these returns.)

At this point t.n extremely significant fact shouldbe mentioned relative to a limitation of this study.No effort was made to determine the number of in-dividuals who failed to complete the dissertationafter having completed all other ; requirements. Inthis study, only those who had actually received thedoctorate were contacted. These individuals suc-cessfully overcame all obstacles, but many othersdid not. How many? This is unknown. Why? Thisis also unknown. Perhaps the five step toward in-creased production of doctoral derees in educationis to work with this group to find means by whichsuch losses can be reduced. This limitation wasrecognized in the study design, but had to be ignoredbecause of the difficulties involved in data collection.

1/ The reader should bear is ?hind the fact that these responses represent the individual's view as tothe time when he was "in residence,"

2/ A limitation, of the coding 'system did not permit exact coding for those whose program exceeded99 months.

A large number of respondents noticed the omissionand made special efforts to bring it to attention.

There are possibly as many different residencerequirements as there are institutions in this study.These requirements vary from (a) those which maybe fulfilled in summer only, evenings and Saturdaysonly, and part-time study (b) to those involving twoor three academic years as a full-time student.Data from the supplements show that 15.7 percentof the individuals returning this form did not spendany part of an academic year in residence with asmuch as a half-time course load.!/ Table 79 showsthe median number of months to be 20 with 50 per-cent of the group in residence from 12 to 30 months.The Ed.D.'s and Ph.D.'s differed relative to themedian number of months in residence. The medianfor the Ed.D.'s was 18 months; for the Ph.D.'s, 24months. The groups differed in range as well. One-half of the Ed.D.'s were in residence from 12 to 24months; one-half of the Ph.D.'s were in residencefrom 15 to 36 months.

The reported length of the total program variedfrom less than a year to more than eight years (seeTable 80).2/ The median length of time was 60months (i.e., 5 years). Fifty percent of the groupcompleted the total program in 36 to 88 months.Another group, constituting 17.0 percent of the total,required 99 or more months--this was, in fact, themode for the total population of respondents. TheEd.D.'s and Ph.D.'s did not differ greatly in thisrespect; both had a median of 60 months. It seems,however, that a larger group of the Ed.D.'s required99 or more months to finish the degree. The inter-quartile range was from 36 to 93 months for theEd.D.'s and from 36 to 84 months for the Ph.D.'s.Further, an analysis of the supplements shows thatwork was completed primarily in summers by 39.3percent of the group, during academic years by 52.4percent of the group, and on a part-time basis by8.3 percent of the group. Institutions showed markedvariation as to median length of program and range.When the 38 largest institutions were ranked on me-dian length of program, the range was from morethan 99 to 38 month - -a difference of five years.This is, no doubt, a Actor over which institutionsexercise some kind 'of control, although the formwhich it takes cannot be adequately determined fromthese data. However, if institutions ranked on thisvariable are correlated with rank on other variables,certain relationships come to light. For example,length of program correlates .54 with incidence ofcritical periods. A correlation of .48 exists between

43,111kfirZO

44

length of program and incidence of distractions.A small but significant correlation of .36 existsbetween length of program and absence of assistant-ships. No correlation was discovered between lengthof program and absence of scholarships and fellow-ships.

Dissertation costs ranged from less than $100to more than $5000, with 51.2 percent costing $500or less and 72 percent costing less than $1000.Approximately one-fifth of the people spent morethan $1000 on the dissertation (see Table 81).3/ Thecost of Ph.D. and Ed.D. dissertations differed some-what ( p < .10); costs of Ed.D. dissertations appearedto have been slightly higher (see Table 82.).

The cost of the dissertation was borne by therespondents in 69.1 percent of the cases and eitherpartially or totally by an agency in the remainderof the cases. The "GI Bill" was most often citedas the "supporting organization." Foundations or in-stitutes and universities were credited slightly lessoften (see Tables 83 and 84).

Dissertation titles, together with statementsabout the areas for which they had implications,were requested, but the results were not coded ortabulated.

A critical period was defined as "a situationrequiring temporary discontinuation of the doctoralprogram." In spite of this restrictive definition,901 individuals (35.4 percent) placed themselves inthis category (see Table 85). The Ed.D. 's and Ph.D.'sdid not differ in this respect, but comparisons of in-stitutions revealed variations from 52.2 percent to15.6 percent. In other words, in some institutionsmore than one-half of the graduates temporarily dis-continued their program; in other institutions, only15 percent. For those who indicated critical periods,the greatest single cause cited was the pressure ofwork (44.7 percent). Other evidence indicated thatthis was not usually work associated with an assist-antship, but full-time work carried on in conjunctionwith the program (see Table 86). Financial prob-lems beset approximately one-third of the group.Family problems constituted still another kind ofcrisis. The causes which respondents volunteeredwere usually of an individual nature and were diffi-cult to classify. Quite often the interruption arosefrom multiple rather than single problems as is in-dicated in column 2, Table 86. If it could be assumedthat the large proportion of the group engaged inconcurrent work were an indication of financial dif-ficulties, 76 percent might be a more accurateestimate as to the proportion of individuals con-fronted with serious financial problems.

A near-critical period was defined as "a situa-tion in which program discontinuation nearly re-sulted and/or in which emergency measures wererequired to prevent an interruption." In response

to this item, 776 individuals (30.5 percent) gavepositive answers (see Table 87). Some overlapoccurred between this item and the previous one, butnot a great amount; that is, a few individuals statedthat both critical and near - critical r eriods occurred.If the two items are considered together, it may besafely stated that over 50 percent of the sampleresponded positively to one item or the other. TheEd.D.'s and Ph.D.'s did not differ on this item. In-stitutions were not ranked on this item. As com-pared with responses on the previous item (i.e.,critical period), work pressures were less evidentin these responses; general discouragement and per-sonal relationships acquired greater significance;other factors remained at the same level of sig-nificance (see Table 88).

For 58.8 percent of the sample, persistent orrecurring distractions prevented wholehearted atten-tion to the doctoral study (see Table 89). The"average" respondent indicated two sources of dis-traction. Excessive time devoted to noncourse dutieswas given most often as the source of distraction(33.7 percent). The next most common sources wereinadequate financing and family problems (see Table90). It is also important to note that 26.6 percent ofthe group volunteered numerous reasons for distrac-tion which were related to the demands of full-timeemployment. It is also likely that many respondentschecked "excessive demands on time" instead ofwriting a comment. Once again the following ques-tions could be asked: "How directly are these re-sponses related to financial problems?" and "Whydid these people not devote full time to study?"It is possible that full-time employment was main-tained because of inability to obtain leave of absence,fear of losing tenure or seniority, or a feeling thatdoctoral study was of less importance than the job.Such possibilities could not be ignored. On the basisof data obtained, however, immediate financial needseemed the most plausible explanation for concur-rent full-time employment.

The Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s did not differ signifi-cantly as to the frequency of distractions, but insti-tutions varied considerably. When universities wereranked on proportion of respondents reporting dis-tractions, the range was from 77.3 to 21.7 percent.Close inspection did not reveal common character-istics for institutions with similar rank, nor wasthere any correlation between rank on this item andinstitutional rank based upon the incidence of criticalperiods.

It is also interesting to inquire as to when criti-cal periods are most likely to occur. Informationgathered from the supplementary forms suggestedthat these frequently occurred after course workwas completed. For the 50 persons who plotted thesecritical periods on the supplement, 37 (74 percent)of them showed that the interruption occurred in thelatter part of the program.

3/ These costs represent actual expenditures apart from loss of earning power during the time re-quired to complete the study.

00053

When institutions were ranked as to the propor-tion of individuals undergoing distractions, and thenranked again, in reverse order, as to the amount ofstudent - faculty interaction perceived, a correlationof .36 was observed. It is possible to interpret thisas a tendency to be less aware of distraction whenthere is some degree of student-faculty interaction.

The significant sources of encouragement notedby the respondents were the major professor (85.2percent), the spouse (62.9 percent), and other staff

45

members (56.5 percent) (see Table 91). Major pro-fessors and spouses were often considered to be a"most important" source of encouragement, butother staff members were seldom viewed in thismanner. A source of encou:.agement frequently vol-unteered was "employer during the program." Itwould be interesting to learn whether or not thisencouragement occurred in the interval betweencourse work and thesis completion. The Ed.D.'sand Ph.D.'s did not differ with respect to the indi-viduals who encouraged Cieir study.

TABLE 77.--MONTHS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS

Of totalOf those

respondingMonths Number Percent Percent

1 2 3 4

One 76 3.0% 9.5%Two 130 5.1 16.2Three 111 4.4 13.9Four 62 2.4 7.7Five 43 1.7 5.4Six 106 4.2 13.2Seven 19 0.7 2.4Eight 34 1.3 4.2Nine 45 1.8 5.6Ten 23 0.9 2.9Eleven 8 0.3 1.0Twelve 57 2.2 7.1Twelve or more 87 3.4 10.9No response or no

language requirement. 1741 68.6

Total 2542 100.0% 100.0%

TABLE 78.--MONTHS SPENT ON THESIS

Months Number Months Number Months Number Months Number1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

2 6 23 22 44 9 66 23 15 24 223 45 8 67 14 19 25 15 46 3 68 25 28 26 28 47 2 70 36 92 27 24 48 49 71 27 45 28 22 49 4 72 98 100 29 15 50 8 73 19 128 30 50 51 4 74 1

10 98 31 6 52 3 76 211 56 32 17 53 5 77 212. . . .13. . . .

. . 341..

. . .3334

1810

5455

33

78 280 3

14 80 35 8 56 2 84 715 118 36 114 57 4 85 1

16 69 37 5 58 1 88 117 44 38 9 59 1 89 1

18 172 39 5 60 26 96 519 27 40 17 62 2 99 or more. 420 68 41 6 63 2 No response 12121 34 42 7 64 3

Total .. 254222 28 43 5 65 2

00054

46

TABLE 79.--MONTHS SPENT IN RESIDENCE

Months Number Months Number Months Number Months Number1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

1 1 24 249 47 4 71 132 3 25 19 48 47 76 23 8 26 35 49 2 77 14 11 27 57 50 11 78 15 13 28 27 51 2 79 16 41 29 10 52 8 80 27 18 30 51 53 3 81 18 39 31 9 54 8 82 19 130 32 18 55 4 84 7

10 58 33 31 56 4 85 211 44 34 14 57 1 86 1

12 281 35 9 58 1 87 113 37 36 118 59 2 89 214 50 37 6 60 25 90 315 116 38 9 61 1 91 216 49 39 12 62 2 94 217 22 40 33 63 4 96 818 143 41 6 64 2 98 or more . 2119 24 42 10 65 2 No residence20 73 43 6 66 2 requirements 11621 80 44 12 68 4 No response. 11922 56 45 14 69 423 36 46 3 70 2 Total . . . . 2542

TABLE 80.--MONTHS SPENT ON TOTAL PROGRAM

Months Number Months Number Months Number Months Number

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

7 3 31 19 55 11 79 138 1 32 20 56 15 80 149 2 33 38 57 14 81 25

10 3 34 29 58 12 82 1611 3 35 24 59 22 83 1912 7 36 110 60 112 84 10513 4 37 18 61 11 85 614 2 38 24 62 17 86 2015 4 39 15 63 16 87 1016 3 40 17 64 9 88 717 7 41 17 65 10 89 818 11 42 16 66 13 90 919 7 43 12 67 14 91 520 8 44 22 68 13 92 921 38 45 32 69 19 93 1822 29 46 16 70 15 94 1123 40 47 17 71 16 95 12,

24 112 48 105 72 80 96 6325 15 49 15 73 10 97 926 31 50 27 74 24 98 1,527 16 51 8 75 16 99 or more. 43128 5 52 10 76 8 No response. 19229 9 53 15 77 730 24 54 14 78 18 Total. . . 2542

00055

47

TABLE 81.--COST OF THE DISSERTATION

Cost Number Percent

1 2 3

Less than $100 129 5.1%$101 to $300 595 23.4$301 to $500 577 22.7$501 to $750 240 9.4$751 to $1,000 291 11.4$1,001 to $1,500 141 5.5$1,501 to $2,500 163 6.4$2,501 to $5,000 141 5.5$5,001 or more 80 3.2No response 185 7.4

Total 2542 100.0%

TABLE 82.--DISSERTATION COSTS FOR PH.D.'S AND ED.D.'S

CostPh.D. Ed.D.


1 2 3 4 5

Less than $100 59 6.8% 70 4.2%$101 to $300 217 25.1 378 22.5$301 to $500 180 20.8 397 23.7$501 to $750 65 7.5 175 10.4$751 to $1,000 98 11.3 194 11.6$1,001 to $1,500 , 54 6.2 87 5.2$1,501 to $2,500 65 7.5 98 5.8$2,501 to $5,000 43 5.0 97 5.8$5,001 or more 22 2.5 58 3.5No response 62 7.3 123 7.2

Total 865 100.0% 1677 100.0%

TABLE 83.--METHODS OF FINANCING THE DISSERTATION

Method used Number Percent

1 2 3

Entirely by self 1757 69.1%Entirely by an organization (e.g., university,

foundation, industry, etc.) 128 5.0Partially by self; partially by an organization ...... . 622 24.5No response 35 1.4

Total 2542 100.0%

I $',000 6

48

TABLE 84.--ORGANIZATIONS WHICH HELPED FINANCE THE DISSERTATION

OrganizationOf total

Of thosefinanced

Number Percent Per cent

1 2 3 4

Organization not specified 39 1.5% 5.2%

"GI Bill" 246 9.7 32.8

University 173 6.8 23.1

Public school district 23 0.9 3.1

Foundation or institute 169 6.6 22.6

State department of education 34 1.3 4.6

Business or industry 23 0.9 3.0

Other 43 1.8 5.6

No response or unfinanced 1792 70.5

Total 2542 100.0% 100.0%

TABLE 85.--INCIDENCE OF CRITICAL PERIODS

Response Number Percent

1 2 3

A critical period occurred 901 35.4%

No critical period occurred 1551 61.0

No response 90 3.6

Total 2542 100.0%

TABLE 86.--CAUSES OF CRITICAL PERIODS

Causal factors Of totalOf those havingcritical periods

Number Percent Percent

1 2 3 4

Family problems 188 7.4% 20.9%

Academic pressures 106 4.2 11.8

Personal health 114 4.5 12.7

Financial problems 283 11.1 31.4

Work pressures 403 15.9 44.7

Other. .General discouragement . . . 33 1.3 3.7Military service 37 1.5 4.1

Personal relationships 18 0.7 2.0

Other 111 4.4 12.3

TABLE 87.- -INCIDENCE OF NEAR-CRITICAL PERIODS

Response Number Percent

1 2 3

A near-critical period occurred 776 30.5%

No near-critical period occurred 1552 61.1

No response 214 8.4

Total 2542 100.0%

000ra

TA

BLE

88.

--C

AU

SE

S O

F N

EA

R-C

RIT

ICA

L P

ER

IOD

ST

AB

LE

89.

-IN

CID

EN

CE

OF

DIS

TR

AC

TIN

G F

AC

TO

RS

Cau

sal f

acto

rsO

f to

tal

Of

thos

e ha

ving

near

-cri

tical

peri

ods

Res

pons

eN

umbe

rPe

rcen

t1

23

Num

ber

Perc

ent

Perc

ent

Dis

trac

ting

fact

ors

occu

rred

..

..

No

dist

ract

ing

fact

or o

ccur

red

..

No

resp

onse

Tot

al

1495 98

8 59

58.8

%38

.9 2.3

12

34

Fam

ily p

robl

ems

Aca

dem

ic p

ress

ures

Pers

onal

hea

lth .

Fina

ncia

l pro

blem

sW

ork

pres

sure

sO

ther Gen

eral

dis

cour

agem

ent

.

Pers

onal

rel

atio

nshi

psO

ther

129

75 91 235

220

.64 48 92

5.1%

3.0

3.6

9.2

8.7

2.5

1.9

3.6

16.6

%9.

711

.730

.328

.4 8.2

6.2

11.9

2542

100.

0%

TA

BL

E 9

0.--

SOU

RC

ES

OF

DIS

TR

AC

TIO

N

C' 1 CI)

Dis

trac

ting

fact

ors

A s

igni

fican

t fac

tor

The

mos

t sig

nific

ant f

acto

r

Of t

otal

Of t

hose

hav

ing

dist

ract

ions

Of t

otal

Of t

hose

hav

ing

dist

ract

ions

Num

ber

Per

cent

Per

cent

Num

ber

Per

cent

Perc

ent

12

34

56

7

Inad

equa

te fi

nanc

ing

324

12.7

1/0

21.7

%15

86.

2%10

.6%

Hou

sing

pro

blem

s11

24.

48.

417

0.7

1.1

Fam

ily p

robl

ems

280

11.0

18.7

923.

66.

2E

xces

sive

dem

ands

on

time

devo

ted

to n

onco

urse

dut

ies

329

12.9

22.0

175

6.9

11.7

Per

sona

l hea

lth10

03.

926

1.0

1.7

Aca

dem

ic p

ress

ures

174

6.8

11.6

361.

42.

4P

rofe

ssio

nal r

elat

ions

hips

110

4.3

7.4

341.

32.

3O

ther

Dem

ands

of f

ull-t

ime

empl

oym

ent

216

8.5

14.3

184

7.2

12.3

Con

cern

abo

ut a

ctua

l val

ue o

fth

e pr

ogra

m:1

0.4

0.7

301.

22.

0O

ther

893.

56.

077

3.0

5.2

50

TABLE 91.--INDIVIDUALS WHO ENCOURAGED DOCTORAL STUDY

IndividualsA significant The most significantindividual individual


Major professor 1239 48.7% 925 36.5%Other staff members 1266 49.8 171 6.7Acquaintances 745 29.3 58 2.2

. Parents 562 22.1 82 3.2Spouse 895 35.2 703 27.7Other relatives 259 10.2 38 1.5Former employer 284 11.2 43 1.7Prospective employer 146 5.7 11 0.4Other

Professional colleagues 96 3.8 33 1.3Employer during program . 144 5.7 31 1.2Fellow students 40 1.6 16 0.6Former professors 30 1.2 23 0.9Other 82 3.2 35 1.4

OW19

Chapter VI

ATTITUDES TOWARD SELECTED SITUATIONSENCOUNTERED DURING THE PROGRAM

This section of the report is devoted to ananalysis and interpretation of the attitudes held bythe respondents relative to certain selected situa-tions which are frequently encountered during a doc-toral program. The items were chosen on the basisof their general applicability for doctoral studentsand their importance to the individual's feeling ofsatisfaction concerning his graduate program.

In general, the responses to all attitude itemswere concentrated on the positive side. A slight haloeffect may have been functioning, for thrie wererecent graduates. However, for the purpcst.a of thisinquiry, perhaps the negative side alone should beconsidered. Although such cases were nearly alwaysin the minority, the question of what may be done toeliminate more dissatisfaction can always be con-sidered, especially in instances where the amount ofdissatisfaction in a given institution is greater thanthe "average" presented here.

Responses to questions concerned with the com-pleteness of initial interviews indicated that 31 per-cent of the individuals telt these interviews to havebeen incomplete (see Table 92). The Ph.D.'s differedsignificantly from the Ed.D.'s on this item--thePh.D.'s had a more negative feeling ( p < .01).Generally, the proportion of negative responses forall individuals on this item was higher tl4n for mostof the other items dealing with attitudes.

Individuals were highly pleased with the appro-priate nature cf their course work. Only 6.3 per-cent gave negative replies (see Table 93). Ph.D.'swere significantly less positive in this respect thanwere the Ed.D.'s ( p < .05). Considerable variationappears as one compares major fields in this item.Curriculum and higher education majors gave acomparatively high number of negative responses(see Table 94).

Only 23.9 percent of the individuals indicatedan imbalance of course work in either direction bothwithin and without the major area. The Ph.D.'s andEd.D.'s again differed significantly ( p < .01). ThePh.D.'s perceived more emphasis on courses out-side the major area, and less emphasis on courseswithin the major area, than did the Ed.D.'s (seeTable 95). One also notes differences among grad-uates from the various major fields. Those special-izing in subject matter areas, mathematics orscience, clinical psychology, and, to a lesser extent,special education, expressed more concern aboutemphasis upon courses outside the major field thandid the respondents in general. Overemphasis in themajor area was perceived most often by those major-ing in secondary and higher education (see Table 96).

The perceived value of languages, as rated bothby those required to pass reading requirements andby those who were not, is presented in Tables 97and 98. After percents were corrected for individ-uals not responding, it appears that those not sub-ject to these requirements were slightly less nega-tively disposed toward languages than were thosewho were required to take them. The observationthat negative and positive attitudes are, in part, afunction of having been, or not having been, expectedto meet a requirement will be noted elsewhere inthis chapter.

Approximately 80 percent of the respondentswere expected to pass a statistics requirement.Table 99 indicates that only 6 percent felt the re-quirement to have little or no value. Ed.D.-Ph.D.comparisons showed a significant difference betweenthe two sets of responses ( p < .001). This differ-ence seemed to result from (a) the fact that a largerproportion of the Ed.D.'s were subject to the re-quirement and (b) the fact that the Ph.D.'s were morehighly favorable toward it. Among the major fields,it appears that those respondents who majored insubject areas, social foundations, 4nd mathematicsor science encountered the statistics requirementleast often while those who majored in clinicalpsychology, guidance, and secondary education en-countered the requirement most often (see Table100). High negative feeling toward the value ofstatistics was evidenced by majors in higher educa-tion, social foundations, and secondary education.

Responses were generally positive toward theamount of student interaction encouraged by the vari-ous departments, but a moderate proportion ofnegative reaction was in evidence (27.3 percent)(see Table 101). However, when student interactionwas rated as to its value, this moderate proportiontook on greater importance, for only 11 percent ofthe group placed a low value on this factor (seeTable 102). Ed.D. and Ph.D. responses showed avery high degree of independence ( p < .001) as tothe amount of student interaction which they per-ceived. The Ed.D.'s perceived much more of it thandid the Ph.D.'s. The two groups did not differ sig-nificantly as to the value placed on such interaction.Those who majored in the practical arts, adminis-tration, student personnel administration, curricu-lum, and social foundations saw less encouragementof student interaction than did the respondents as awhole. Those who majored in clinical psychologyand the subject areas perceived more encourage-.ment than did the group as a whole (see Table 103).It is interesting that those who majored in the sub-ject areas perceived greater amounts of encourage-ment for student interaction than did the group as a

51

52

whole, and yet placed a lower value on student inter-action than did the group as a whole (see Table 104).

Feeling was generally positive as to the amountof student-faculty interaction encouraged, but a size-able block (26.7 percent) felt a lack of such en-couragement. When one notes that only 4.4 percentof the respondents placed a negative value on suchinteraction, he wonders what the institutions' re-sponsibilities should be to this one-fourth of thepopulation (see Tables 105 and 106). Ed.D.-Ph.D.responses are statistically independent ( p < .001).The Ed.D.'s perceived much more student-facultyinteraction than did the Ph.D.'s. As was the casewith student interaction, the Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s didnot differ in the value placed on student-facultyinteraction. Among the major fields, graduates inpractical arts, curriculum, and student personneladministration perceived low interaction; educa-tional psychology and subject area majors perceivedhigh interaction (see Table 107). Although educa-tional psychology majors perceived high interaction,they placed a lower value on it than did the group asa whole (see Table 108). A partial explanation ofsome of the interaction responses of those individ-uals who perceived small amounts is revealedthrough marginal comments written by "commutingstudents." These respondents often deplored thelack of opportunity to become acquainted with fellowstudents and faculty members. This lack may be ofsuch significance as to argue for residence require-ments which would permit such interaction to takeplace. While one may debate about the academicvalue of such mutual contact as opposed to the lossof students due to rigorous requirements for resi-dency, one cannot argue the fact that these re-spondents valued very highly interaction with oneanother and with the faculty.

It is possible to arrive at an index of the extentto which interaction is encouraged within institutionsby combining the two most positive categories onstudent-faculty interaction. When the 38 most pro-ductive institutions were ranked on this criterion, itwas found that the proportion of students who per-ceived encouragement for student-faculty interactionranged from 82.6 percent in some institutions to 21.7percent in others. Inspection reveals that some, butnot all, institutions with large numbers of commutingstudents ranked low on this scale. It also seemsthat in some situations, commuting students did notnecessarily feel left out insofar as student-facultyinteraction was concerned. One notes also that at-tendance in' residence" institutions does not guaran-tee that student-faculty interaction will take place.

Two pieces of information were revealed by theitem which dealt with the influence of assistantshipson selection of major areas of study. First, it wasnoted that 50.4 percent of the group held assistant-ships, and second, that approximately 50 percent ofthe group holding these positions were influenced bythem in the choice of majors (see Table 109). Al-though the responses of the Ed.D.'s and Ph.D.'s

appeared to be independent relative to this item( p < .01), this outcome seems due, not to differencein influence on selection of a major, but to the higherproportion of Ph.D.'s who held assistantships. Thesame is true for the responses to questions concern-ing the value of assistantships; the independence ofPh.D.-Ed.D. populations may be an artifact resultingfrom differences in the proportions who held thesepositions (see Table 110). When percentages werecorrected by eliminating persons for whom the itemdid not apply, the differences no longer existed. Thevalue ascribed to assistantships was high indeed, andtheir importance appeared to be educational ratherthan financial. There appeared to be no disagree-ment between the various majors as to the value ofassistantships, although the percentages reported inTable 111 were not corrected by removing individualswho did not hold assistantships.

Attitudes toward the usefulness of advice andcounseling which was provided by institutions werehighly positive, more so than on most items, withonly 10.7 percent of the group giving negative re-sponses (see Table 112). Only clinical psychologymajors showed any great deviation in the negativedirection (see Table 113). Responses of the Ph.D.'sdid not differ significantly from those of the Ed.D.'s.

Only a very few respondents (6.3 percent) feltany appreciable absence of freedom for self-direction(see Table 114). The Ed.D.'s and Ph.D.'s did notdiffer significantly in this respect. No major fieldseemed to stand out in either a positive or negativedirection (see Table 115).

There were but a few negative replies (6.2 per-cent) to the question about institutional co-operationin providing sources of data and opportunities for ex-perimentation in thesis work. The Ed.D.'s andPh.D.'s differed in this respect. There was greaterfeeling of extremely satisfactory co-operation on thepart of the Ph.D.'s (see Table 116). It would be in-teresting to learn if this difference might, in somepart, be attributed to differences in the kind of re-search done by the Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s.

Nearly all respondents indicated their librarieswere at least "moderately satisfactory" (see Table117). There was no difference between the Ph.D.'sand Ed.D.'s. The extent to which departments madefacilities available for handling data was consideredinadequate by 18.2 percent of the sample (see Table118). It is interesting to note that an additional 15percent of the sample considered the item inapplic-able. These respondents made marginal commentswhich indicated that theirs was either a nonstatis-tical dissertation or a study which had been con-ducted away from the parent institution. The re-sponses of the Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s were statisticallyindependent ( p < .001). The difference apparentlystemmed from two sources. First, a larger propor-tion of the Ed.D.'s found the item inapplicable.Second, the Ed.D.'s were not so positively convincedas to the availability of facilities. Comparisons

00061

between fields were not made but might possiblyproduce interesting differences which could be re-lated to the kind of dissertation which was attempted.

In concK ion, it should be noted that the valueof these items on attitude is still to be realized.These responses represent perceptions of graduates

53

relative to conditions existing in their respectiveinstitutions at the time of their doctoral work. Inthe Denver study there are statements of conditionsand policies which have been made by the institu-tionu. These items, then, represent points of con-tact between the two studies.

TABLE 92.--COMPLETENESS OF INITIAL INTERVIEWSa, AS VIEWED BY PH.D.'S AND ED.D.'S

Degree of completenessPh.D. Ed.D. Total

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Extremely complete 77 8.9% 243 14.5% 320 12.6%Of considerable completeness. 239 27.6 490 29.2 729 28.7Moderately complete .. . . .. . 221 25.5 428 25.5 649 25.5Rather incomplete 181 20.9 302 18.0 483 19.0Decidedly incomplete 128 14.8 176 10.5 304 12.0No response and inapplicable . 19 2.3 38 2.3 57 2.2

Total 865 100.0% 1677 100.0% 2542 100.0%

aW ith respect to information on assistantships, course requirements, housing, loans, time required, etc.

TABLE 93.--APPROPRIATENESS OF COURSE WORK, AS VIEWED BY PH.D.'S AND ED.D.'S

Degree of appropriatenessPh.D. Ed.D. Total


Entirely inappropriate 8 0.9% 29 1.7% 37 1.5%Rather inappropriate 42 4.9 79 4.7 121 4.8Moderately appropriate 266 30.8 405 24.2 671 26.4Definitely appropriate 388 44.9 844 50.3 1232 48.5Extremely appropriate 161 18.5 316 18.8 477 18.7No response 0 0.0 4 0.3 4 0.1

Total 865 100.0% 1677 100.0% 2542 100.0%

00062

TA

BLE

94.

--A

PP

RO

PR

IAT

EN

ES

S O

F C

OU

RS

E W

OR

K, A

S V

IEW

ED

BY

TH

E V

AR

IOU

S M

AJO

RS

Maj

or fi

elds

Ent

irely

inap

pro-

pria

te

Rat

her

in-

appr

opri-

ate

Mod

erat

ely

appr

opri-

ate

Def

inite

lyap

prop

ri-at

e

Ext

rem

ely

appr

opri-

ate

No

resp

onse

Num

ber

12

34

56

78

Spe

cial

edu

catio

n ..

-...

4.0%

2P.0

%52

.0%

16.0

%...

50A

dmin

istr

atio

n1.

6%3.

925

.352

.017

.2...

621

Cur

ricul

um3.

52.

623

.546

.124

.3...

115

_Phy

sica

l edu

catio

n0.

94.

725

.245

.823

.4000

107

Pra

ctic

al a

rts

004

3.9

20.3

57.0

18.8

000

128

Soc

ial f

ound

atio

ns1.

63.

223

.847

.623

.8...

63

Sub

ject

are

as2.

44.

334

.839

.617

.71.

2%16

4M

athe

mat

ics

or s

cien

ce7.

832

.546

.713

.077

Edu

catio

nal p

sych

olog

y0.

77.

429

.545

.616

.8004

149

Sec

onda

ry e

duca

tion

2.0

8.1

27.3

49.5

12.1

1.0

99E

lem

enta

ry e

duca

tion

0.8

2.3

18.5

55.4

23.0

130

Hig

her

educ

atio

n4.

28.

532

.428

.226

.771

Gui

danc

e1.

75.

826

.049

.716

.8...

173

Clin

ical

psy

chol

ogy

1.0

4.1

35.7

42.9

16.3

404

98S

tude

nt p

erso

nnel

adm

inis

trat

ion

...9.

125

.043

.222

.7...

44

TA

BLE

95.

--B

ALA

NC

E O

F C

OU

RS

E W

OR

K, A

S V

IEW

ED

BY

PH

.D.'S

AN

D E

D.D

,'S

CZ

Deg

ree

of e

mph

asis

Ph

.D .

Ed

.DT

otal

Num

ber

Per

cent

Num

ber

Per

cent

Num

ber

Per

cent

12

34

56

7

Gre

at o

vere

mph

asis

on

the

maj

or a

rea

131.

5%18

1.1%

311.

2%O

vere

mph

asis

on

the

maj

or a

rea

819.

421

112

.629

211

.5P

rope

r ba

lanc

e63

373

.212

6775

.619

0074

.7O

vere

mph

asis

on

cour

ses

outs

ide

the

maj

or a

rea

101

11.7

141

8.4

242

9.5

Gre

at o

vere

mph

asis

on

cour

ses

outs

ide

the

maj

or a

rea

151.

726

1.5

421.

7N

o re

spon

se a

nd in

appl

icab

le22

2.5

140.

836

1.4

Tot

al86

510

0.0%

1677

100.

0%25

4210

0.0%

TA

BL

E 9

6.--

BA

LA

NC

E O

F C

OU

RSE

WO

RK

, AS

VIE

WE

D B

Y T

HE

VA

RIO

US

MA

JOR

S

Maj

or fi

eld

Gre

at o

ver-

emph

asis

on

maj

or a

rea

Ove

rem

pha-

sis

onm

ajor

are

aP

rope

rR

alan

ce

Ove

rem

phas

isou

tsid

em

ajor

are

a

Gre

at o

ver-

emph

asis

outs

ide

maj

or a

rea

No

resp

onse

Num

ber

12

34

56

78

Spe

cial

edu

catio

n2.

0%2.

0%80

.0%

14.0

%2.

0%50

Adm

inis

trat

ion

1.0

15.9

77.0

5:2

0.5

0.4%

621

Cur

ricul

um15

.780

.02.

60.

90.

811

5

Phy

sica

l edu

catio

nP

ract

ical

art

s1.

93.

17.

510

.273

.875

.013

.1 8.6

3.7

2.3

0.8

107

128

Soc

ial f

ound

atio

ns040

4.8

84.1

9.5

1.6

63

Sub

ject

are

as1.

24.

967

.119

.54.

33.

016

4M

athe

mat

ics

or s

cien

ce14

.358

.418

.26.

52.

677

Edu

catio

nal p

sych

olog

y7.

479

.211

.42.

014

9

Sec

onda

ry e

duca

tion

4.0

16.2

71.7

4.0

2.0

2.1

99

Ele

men

tary

edu

catio

n2.

312

.380

.04.

600

00.

813

0

Hig

her

educ

atio

n1.

418

.366

.212

.700

01.

471

Gui

danc

e14

.573

.46.

92.

32.

917

3

Clin

ical

psy

chol

ogy

Stu

dent

adm

inis

trat

ion

2.0

9.2

11.4

59.2

81.8

24.5

6.8

5.1 -

98 44pe

rson

nel

0.

:Z)

TA

BLE

97.

--V

ALU

E O

F L

AN

GU

AG

ES

, AS

VIE

WE

DB

Y T

HO

SE

WH

O T

OO

K T

HE

MT

AB

LE

98.

--V

AL

UE

OF

LA

NG

UA

GE

S, A

S V

IEW

ED

BY

TH

OSE

WH

O D

ID N

OT

TA

KE

TH

EM

Rat

ing

of v

alue

Of

tota

lC

orre

cted

Rat

ing

of v

alue

Of

tota

lC

orre

cted

Perc

ent

Perc

ent

Num

ber

Perc

ent

Perc

ent

Num

ber

12

34

23

4

Ext

rem

ely

valu

able

3.8%

9.2%

96O

f no

val

ue7.

3%11

.4%

186

Of

cons

ider

able

val

ue4.

911

.912

4O

f lit

tle v

alue

27.2

42.4

691

Mod

erat

ely

valu

able

7.6

18.7

194

Mod

erat

ely

valu

able

17.9

27.9

454

Of

little

val

ue15

.738

.640

1O

f co

nsid

erab

le v

alue

8.3

13.0

212

Of

no v

alue

8.8

21.6

223

Ext

rem

ely

valu

able

3.3

5.3

85N

o re

spon

se a

nd in

appl

icab

le .

.59

.215

04N

o re

spon

se a

nd in

appl

icab

le .

36.0

914

Tot

al10

0.0%

100.

0%25

42T

otal

100.

0%10

0.0%

2542

TA

BLE

99.

--V

ALU

E O

F S

TA

TIS

TIC

S R

EQ

UIR

EM

EN

T, A

S V

IEW

ED

BY

PH

.D.'S

AN

D E

D.D

.'S

Rat

ing

of v

alue

Ph.

D.

Ed.

D.

Tot

al

Num

ber

Per

cent

Num

ber

Per

cent

Num

ber

Per

cent

12

34

56

7

Ext

rem

ely

valu

able

305

35.3

%40

324

.0%

708

27.8

%O

f con

side

rabl

e va

lue

231

26.7

547

32.6

778

30.6

Mod

erat

ely

valu

able

9511

.029

617

.739

115

.4O

f litt

le v

alue

313.

610

66.

313

75.

4O

f no

valu

e6

0.7

80.

514

0.6

No

resp

onse

and

inap

plic

able

197

22.7

317

18.9

514

20.2

Tot

al86

5;0

0.0%

1677

100.

0%25

4210

0.0%

TA

BLE

100

.--V

ALU

E O

F S

TA

TIS

TIC

S R

EQ

UIR

EM

EN

T, A

S V

IEW

ED

11Y

TH

E V

AR

IOU

S M

AJO

RS

C.1

1M

ajor

fiel

dE

xtre

mel

yva

luab

le

Of c

onsi

d-er

able

valu

eM

oder

atel

yva

luab

leO

f litt

leva

lue

Of n

ova

lue

Inap

plic

able

and

nore

spon

seN

umbe

r

12

34

56

78

Spe

cial

edu

catio

n30

.0%

42.0

%10

.0%

4.0%

14.0

%50

Adm

inis

trat

ion

24.2

32.7

20.1

6.3

0.2%

16.5

621

Cur

ricul

um21

.728

.713

.96.

229

.511

5

Phy

sica

l edu

catio

n24

.327

.117

.84.

70.

925

.210

7P

ract

ical

arr

s19

.533

.619

.57.

10.

819

.512

8S

ocia

l fou

ndat

ions

7.9

a.2

19.0

9.5

41.4

63

Sub

ject

are

as10

.414

.69.

26.

1':2

58.5

164

Mat

hem

atic

s or

sci

ence

28.6

24.7

13.0

1.3

32.4

77E

duca

tiona

l psy

chol

ogy

55.7

24.2

8.1

1.3

10.7

149

Sec

onda

ry e

duca

tion

23.2

37.4

21.2

9.1

1.0

8.1

99E

lem

enta

ry e

duca

tion

26.9

38.5

19.2

4.6

1.5

9.3

130

Hig

her

educ

atio

n21

.131

.012

.712

.722

.571

Gui

danc

e41

.033

.513

.93.

51.

76.

417

3C

linic

al p

sych

olog

y43

.930

.615

.35.

11.

04.

198

Stu

dent

per

sonn

el a

dmin

istr

atio

n25

.038

.622

.713

.744

TA

BLE

101

.--E

XT

EN

T T

O W

HIC

H S

TU

DE

NT

INT

ER

AC

TIO

Na

WA

S E

NC

OU

RA

GE

D,

AS

VIE

WE

D B

Y P

H.D

.'S A

ND

ED

.D.'S

Deg

ree

of e

ncou

rage

men

t

Ph.

D.

Ed

.D.

Tot

al

Num

ber

Per

cent

Num

ber

Per

cent

Num

ber

Per

cent

12

34

56

7

To

a ve

ry g

reat

ext

ent

8710

.1%

266

15.9

%35

313

.9%

To

a co

nsid

erab

le e

xten

t21

725

.157

534

.379

231.2

To

som

e ex

tent

261

30.2

424

25.3

685

26.9

To

a sm

all e

xten

t22

726

.232

319

.355

021.6

Not

at a

ll67

7.7

79

4.7

146

5.7

No

resp

onse

and

inap

plic

able

60,

710

0.5

160.7

865

100.

0%16

7710

0.0%

2542

100.

0%

aT

hrou

gh a

n ac

tive

prog

ram

of i

nfor

mal

sem

inar

s, p

rofe

ssio

nal o

rgan

izat

ions

, soc

ial e

vent

s, e

tc.

TA

BL

E 1

02.-

-VA

LU

E A

SSIG

NE

D T

OST

UD

EN

T I

NT

ER

AC

TIO

Na

Rat

ing

of v

alue

Num

ber

Perc

ent

12

3

Of

no v

alue

552.

2%O

f lit

tle v

alue

224

8.8

Of

som

e va

lue

612

24.2

Of

cons

ider

able

val

ue10

0039.4

Ext

rem

ely

valu

able

603

23.8

No

resp

onse

or

inap

plic

able

.39

L6

Tot

al25

4210

0.0%

aPer

cent

s an

d nu

mbe

rs f

or P

h.D

.'s a

nd E

d.D

.'sar

e no

t pre

sent

ed s

epar

atel

y in

this

*ab

le b

ecau

seof

thei

r la

ck o

f st

atis

tical

inde

pend

ence

. On

the

othe

rite

ms

whe

re n

o in

depe

nden

ceap

pear

s, th

e sa

me

proc

edur

e is

fol

low

ed.

TA

BLE

103

.--E

XT

EN

T T

OW

HIC

H S

TU

DE

NT

IN

TE

RA

CT

ION

WA

S E

NC

OU

RA

GE

D,

AS

VIE

WE

D B

Y T

HE

VA

RIO

US

MA

JOR

S

Maj

or fi

eld

To

ci v

ery

grea

tex

tent

To

cons

ider

able

exte

ntT

o so

me

exte

ntT

o a

smal

lex

tent

Not

at a

ll

Inap

plic

able

and

no r

espo

nse

Num

ber

23

45

67

8

Spe

cial

edu

catio

n10

.0%

40.0

%18

.0%

26.0

%6.

0%50

Adm

inis

trat

ion

15.9

33.7

28.8

18.8

2.8

621

Cur

ricul

um17

.427

.833

.914

.85.

20.9%

115

Phy

sica

l edu

catio

n15

.036

.423

.419

.65.

6107

Pra

ctic

al a

rts

21.1

34.4

26.6

12.5

3.9

128

Soc

ial f

ound

atio

ns12.7

28.6

34.9

19.0

3.2

1.6

63

Sub

ject

are

as11

.021

.325

.037

.23.

71.

816

4M

athe

mat

ics

ar s

cien

ce6.

536

.429

.918

.29.0

77

Edu

catio

nal p

sych

olog

y11.4

27.5

24.2

27.5

8.7

6:7

149

Sec

onda

ry e

duca

tion

10.1

37.4

25.3

15.2

12.0

99E

lem

enta

ry e

duca

tion

10.0

32.3

33.1

15.4

8.5

0.7

130

Hig

her

educ

atio

n18.3

31.0

18.3

25.4

7.0

71

Gui

danc

e15

.029.5

25.4

23.1

6.4

0.6

173

Clin

ical

psy

chol

ogy

11.2

21.4

23.5

35.7

8.2

98S

tude

nt p

erso

nnel

adm

inis

trat

ion

22.7

43.2

18.2

13.6

2.3

44

TA

BL

E 1

04.-

-VA

LU

E O

F ST

UD

EN

T I

NT

ER

AC

TIO

N, A

S V

IEW

ED

BY

TH

E V

AR

IOU

S M

AJO

RS

Maj

or fi

eld

Of

nova

lue

Of l

ittle

valu

eO

f som

eva

lue

Of

cons

ider

able

valu

eE

xtre

mel

yva

luab

le

Inap

plic

able

and

no r

espo

nse

Num

ber

12

34

56

78

Spe

cial

edu

catio

n10

.0%

18.0

%52

.0%

18.0

%2.

0%50

Adm

inis

trat

ion

6.5%

7.1

23.8

47.0

21.3

0.3

621

Cur

ricul

um2.

67.

921

.745

.221

.70.

911

5

Phy

sica

l edu

catio

n0.

98.

425

.343

.021

.50.

910

7P

rnct

ical

art

s0.

89.

416

.439

.832

.01.

612

8S

ocia

l fou

ndat

ions

4.8

4.8

39.7

31.7

19.0

63

Sub

ject

are

as6.

117

.730

.526

.817

.11.

816

4M

athe

mat

ics

or s

cien

ce1.

213

.026

.044

.214

.31.

377

Edu

catio

nal p

sych

olog

y5.

46.

726

.234

.226

.21.

314

9

Sec

onda

ry e

duca

tion

2.0

6.1

19.2

43.4

26.3

3.0

99E

lem

enta

ry e

duca

tion

2.3

5.4

20.0

43.8

26.9

1.5

130

Hig

her

educ

atio

n8.

512

.733

.819

.723

.91.

471

Gui

danc

e1.

29.

224

.942

.219

.13.

417

3C

linic

al p

sych

olog

y3.

18.

226

.525

.536

.7...

98S

tude

nt p

erso

nnel

adm

inis

trat

ion

2.3

6.8

18.2

50.0

22.7

...44

TA

BL

E 1

05.-

-EX

TE

NT

TO

WH

ICH

ST

UD

EN

T-F

AC

UL

TY

IN

TE

RA

CT

ION

WA

S E

NC

OU

RA

GE

D,

AS

VIE

WE

D B

Y P

H.D

.'S A

ND

ED

.D.'S

= emith

i

At.,

s.a.

-ar

,:i

Deg

ree

of e

ncou

rage

men

tPh

.D.

Ed.

D.

Tot

alN

umbe

rPe

rcen

tN

umbe

rPe

rcen

tN

umbe

rPe

rcen

t1

23

45

67

To

a ve

ry g

reat

ext

ent

To

a co

nsid

erab

le e

xten

tT

o so

me

exte

ntT

o a

smal

l ext

ent

Not

at a

llN

o re

spon

se a

nd in

appl

icab

le .

Tot

al

76 246

263

212 66 2

8.8%

28.4

30.4

24.5 7.6

0.2

216

577

480

314 86 4

12.9

%34

.428

.618

.7 5.1

0.3

292

823

743

526

152 6

11.5

%32

.429

.220

.76.

00.

286

510

0.0%

1677

100.

0%25

4210

0.0%

TA

BLE

106

.--V

ALU

E A

SS

IGN

ED

TO

ST

UD

EN

T-F

AC

ULT

Y IN

TE

RA

CT

ION

Rat

ing

of v

alue

Num

ber

Per

cent

12

3

Of n

o va

lue

261.

0%O

f litt

le v

alue

863.

4O

f som

e va

lue

374

14.7

Of c

onsi

dera

ble

valu

e10

8842

.8E

xtre

mel

y va

luab

le94

037

.0N

o re

spon

se o

r in

appl

icab

le28

1.1

Tot

al25

4210

0.0%

TA

BLE

107

.--E

XT

EN

T T

O W

HIC

H S

TU

DE

NT

-FA

CU

LTY

INT

ER

AC

TIO

N W

AS

EN

CO

UR

AG

ED

,A

S V

IEW

ED

BY

TH

E V

AR

IOU

S M

AJO

RS

Maj

or fi

eld

To

a ve

ry g

reat

exte

nt

Te)

cons

ider

able

exte

ntT

o so

me

exte

ntT

o a

smal

lex

tent

Not

at a

ll

Inap

plic

able

ean

dno

res

pons

eN

umbe

r

12

34

56

78

Spe

cial

edu

catio

n8.

0%32

.0%

34.0

%24

.0%

2.0%

50A

dmin

istr

atio

n14

.031

.732

.018

.83.

562

1C

urric

ulum

13.9

33.9

33.0

14.8

4.4

115

Phy

sica

l edu

catio

nP

ract

ical

art

s17

.814

.137

.438

.320

.631

.316

.813

.37.

42.

30.

7%10

712

8S

ocia

l fou

ndat

ions

6.3

31.7

38.1

22.1

1.6

63

Sub

ject

are

as9.

822

.026

.228

.013

.40.

616

4M

athe

mat

ics

or s

cien

ce14

.326

.027

.327

.25.

277

Edu

catio

nal p

sych

olog

y6.

726

.828

.228

.99.

414

9

Sec

onda

ry e

duca

tion

7.1

33.3

28.3

18.2

13.1

99E

lem

enta

ry e

duca

tion

8.5

41.5

25.4

16.9

7.7

130

Hig

her

educ

atio

n16

.925

.428

.223

.V5.

671

Gui

danc

e9.

836

.428

.319

.74.

61.

217

3C

linic

al p

sych

olog

y5.

133

.725

.528

.67.

198

Stu

dent

per

sonn

el a

dmin

istr

atio

n15

.940

.927

.315

.944

c.r!

TA

BLE

108

.--V

ALU

E O

F S

TU

DE

NT

-FA

CU

LTY

INT

ER

AC

TIO

N, A

S V

IEW

ED

BY

TH

E V

AR

IOU

S M

AJO

RS

Mol

ar fi

eld

Of n

ova

lue

Of l

ittle

valu

eO

f som

eva

lue

Of

cons

ider

able

valu

eE

xtre

mel

yva

luab

leN

o re

spon

seN

umbe

r

12

34

56

78

Spe

cial

edu

catio

nA

dmin

istr

atio

n0.

5%... 3.

5%18

.0%

15.6

50.0

%44

.432

,0%

35.7

03%

5062

1C

urric

ulum

.... .

.. .

0.9

2.6

13.0

45.2

36.5

1.8

115

Phy

sica

l edu

aatio

n1.

91.

96.

548

.641

.110

7P

ract

ical

art

s'0.

83.

110

,243

.041

.41.

512

8S

ocia

l fou

ndat

ions

..1.

614

.350

.830

.23.

163

Sub

lect

are

as1.

83.

717

139

.636

.01.

816

4M

athe

mat

ics

or s

cien

ce10

.4lr

,41

.632

.477

Edu

catio

nal p

sych

olog

y....

2.7

7.4

14.8

43.0

31.5

0.6

149

Sec

onda

ry e

duca

tion

. .2.

04.

013

,143

.435

.42.

199

Ele

men

tary

edu

catio

n1.

51.

510

.849

.235

.41.

613

0H

ighe

r ed

ucat

ion

2.8

9.9

18.3

36.6

32.4

...71

Gui

danc

e1.

72.

322

.038

.232

.92.

917

3C

linic

al p

sych

olog

y ...

..3.

15.

113

.335

.741

.81.

098

Stu

dent

per

sonn

el a

dmin

istr

atio

n6.

89.

143

.240.9

44

TA

BL

E 1

09.-

-IN

FLU

EN

CE

OF

ASS

IST

AN

TSH

IPS

UPO

N C

HO

ICE

OF

DO

CT

OR

AL

MA

JOR

,A

S V

IEW

ED

BY

PH

.D.'S

AN

D E

D.D

.'S

Deg

ree

of in

flue

nce

Ph.D

.E

d.D

.T

otal

Num

ber

Perc

ent

Num

ber

Perc

ent

Num

ber

Perc

ent

12

34

56

7

Hig

hly

infl

uent

ial

101

11.7

%14

08.

3%24

19.

5%O

f co

nsid

erab

le in

flue

nce

9711

.214

48.

624

19.

5O

f so

me

infl

uenc

e52

6.0

985.

815

05.

9O

f lit

tle in

flue

nce

829.

513

48.

021

68.

5O

f no

infl

uenc

e16

619

.226

715

.943

317

.0N

o re

spon

se a

nd in

appl

icab

le .

.36

742

.489

453

.412

6149

.6T

otal

865

100-

07o

1677

100.

0%25

4210

0.0%

TA

BL

E 1

10.-

-VA

LU

E O

F A

SSL

STA

NT

SHIP

S, A

S V

IEW

ED

BY

PH.D

.'S A

ND

ED

.D.'S

Rat

ing

of v

alue

Ph.D

.E

d.D

.T

otal

Num

ber

Perc

ent

Num

ber

Perc

ent

Num

ber

Perc

ent

12

34

56

7

Of

no v

alue

40.

5%11

0.7%

150.

5%

Of

little

val

ue15

1.7

211.

336

1.4

Of

som

e va

lue

576.

697

5.8

154

6.1

Of

cons

ider

able

val

ue18

221

.028

416

.946

618

.3

=E

xtre

mel

y va

luab

le25

929

.941

424

.767

326

.5

=N

o re

spon

se a

nd in

appl

icab

le .

.34

840

.385

050

.611

9847

.1

= °IT

otal

865

100.

0%16

7710

0-0%

2542

100.

0%

TA

BL

E 1

11.-

-VA

LJE

OF

ASS

IST

AN

TSH

IPS,

AS

VIE

WE

D B

YT

HE

VA

RIO

US

MA

JOR

S

Maj

or f

ield

Of

nova

lue

Of

little

valu

eO

f so

me

valu

e

Of

cons

ider

able

valu

eE

xtre

mel

yva

luab

le

Inap

plic

able

and

no r

espo

nse

Num

ber

23

45

67

8

Spec

ial e

duca

tion

Adm

inis

trat

ion

0.6%

1.0%

6.0%

6.0

22.0

%18

.734

.0%

23.0

38.0

%50

.750

621

Cur

ricu

lum

1.7

4.3

15.7

30.4

47.9

115

'Phy

sica

l edu

catio

nPr

actic

al a

rts

0.8

0.9

3.1

3.7

9.4

17.8

20.3

26.2

26.6

51.4

39.8

107

128

Soci

al f

ound

atio

ns3.

24.

817

.527

.047

.563

Subj

ect a

reas

1.2

1.2

9.1

10.4

23.8

54.3

164

Mat

hem

atic

s or

sci

ence

2.6

2.6

6.5

23.4

24:7

40.2

77

Edu

catio

nal p

sych

olog

y0.

11.

310

.119

.530

.938

.114

9

Seco

ndar

y .d

ucat

ion

1.0

1.0

8.1

18.2

32.3

39.4

99

Ele

men

tary

edu

catio

n1.

52.

34.

620

.830

.840

.013

0

Hig

her

educ

atio

n1.

44.

25.

619

.719

.749

.471

Gui

danc

e0.

62.

32.

913

.327

.253

.717

3

Clin

ical

psy

chol

ogy

...1.

09.

229

.622

.437

.898

Stud

ent p

erso

nnel

adm

inis

trat

ion

......

2.3

22.7

25.0

50.0

44

TA

BLE

112

.--U

SE

FU

LNE

SS

OF

INS

TIT

UT

ION

AL

AD

VIC

E A

ND

CO

UN

SE

LIN

G

Deg

ree

of u

sefu

lnes

sN

umbe

rPe

rcen

t1

23

Ext

rem

ely

usef

ul62

324

.5%

Of

cons

ider

able

use

fuln

ess

922

36.3

Mod

erat

ely

usef

ul67

426

.5O

f lit

tle u

sefu

lnes

s23

59.

2U

sele

ss39

1.5

=N

o re

spon

se a

nd in

appl

icab

le49

2.0

Tot

al25

4210

0.0%

TA

BL

E 1

13.-

-USE

FUL

NE

SS O

F IN

STIT

UT

ION

AL

AD

VIC

E A

ND

CO

UN

SEL

ING

,A

S V

IEW

ED

BY

TH

E V

AR

IOU

S M

AJO

RS

Maj

or fi

eld

Ext

rem

ely

usef

ul

Of c

onsi

d-er

able

usef

ulne

ssM

oder

atel

yus

eful

Of '

ittle

usef

ul-

ness

Use

less

Inap

plic

able

and

nore

spon

seN

umbe

r

12

34

56

78

Spe

cial

edu

catio

n28

.0%

32.0

%26

.0%

10.0

%2.

0%2.

0%50

Adm

inis

trat

ion

22.4

37.7

27.5

9.2

1.4

1.8

621

Cur

ricul

um32

.234

.820

.98.

70.

92.

511

5

Phy

sica

l edu

catio

n25

.233

.629

.95.

61.

93.

810

7P

ract

ical

art

s39

.132

.825

.03.

1..3

128

Soc

ial f

ound

atio

ns23

.839

.727

.03.

263

Sub

lect

are

as26

.229

.927

.411

.04.

31.

216

4M

athe

mat

ics

or s

cien

ce16

.942

.924

.711

.72.

61.

277

Edu

catio

nal p

sych

olog

y17

.434

.931

.512

.11.

32.

814

9

Seco

ndar

y ed

ucat

ion

22.2

43.4

25.3

7.1

1.0

1.0

99E

lem

enta

ry e

duca

tion

32.3

38.5

22.3

5.4

1.5

130

Hig

her

educ

atio

n25

.436

.628

.29.

871

Gui

danc

e26

.636

.424

.311

.6...

1.1

173

Clin

ical

psyc

holo

gy12

.239

.826

.515

.33.

13.

198

Stu

dent

per

sonn

el a

dmin

istr

atio

n29

.543

.215

.99.

12.

344

TABLE 114.--AMOUNT OF FREEDOM AND SELF-DIRECTIONPERMITTED

Degree of freedom

Number

Percent

12

3

Practically none

37

1.5%

Very

little

123

4.8

:=.

Amoderate amount

579

22.8

= ..

A considerable amount

1179

46.4

A great amount -

615

24.2

',...3.,

No response and inapplicable

90.3

ZND

Tot

al25

4210

0.0%

TA

BL

E 1

15.-

-AM

OU

NT

OF

FRE

ED

OM

AN

D S

EL

F-D

IRE

CT

ION

PER

MIT

TE

D,

AS

VIE

WE

D B

Y T

HE

VA

RIO

US

MA

JOR

S

Maj

or f

ield

Prac

tical

lyno

neV

ery

little

A m

oder

ate

amou

nt

A c

onsi

d-er

able

amou

ntA

grea

tam

ount

No

resp

onse

Num

ber

12

34

56

78

Spec

ial e

duca

tion

2.0%

30.0

%50

.0%

16.0

%2.

0%50

Adm

inis

trat

ion

1.0

3.5%

26.4

47.7

21.3

0.1

621

Cur

ricu

lum

7.0

23.5

45.2

24.3

115

Phys

ical

edu

catio

n4.

76.5

24.3

42.1

22.4

000

107

Prac

tical

art

s1.

67.8

25.0

46.1

19.5

128

Soci

al f

ound

atio

ns1.

63.2

20.6

41.3

31.7

1.6

63

Subj

ect a

reas

1.2

5.5

18.3

49.4

24.4

1.2

164

Mat

hem

atic

s or

sci

ence

2.6

3.9

19.5

49.4

24.6

77

Edu

catio

nal p

sych

olog

y0.

74.7

25.5

51.0

18.1

...14

9

Seco

ndar

y ed

ucat

ion

...6.1

24.2

47.5

22.2

99

Ele

men

tary

edu

catio

n2.

35.4

20.8

41.5

29.2

6:6

130

Hig

her

educ

atio

n5.

62.8

21.1

39.4

31.1

000

71

Gui

danc

e1.

75.2

24.9

46.2

21.4

0.6

173

Clin

ical

edu

catio

n2.

07.1

21.4

49.0

20.4

0.1

98

Stud

ent p

erso

nnel

adm

inis

trat

ion

2.3

15.9

52.3

29.5

44

TA

BLE

116

.--I

NS

TIT

UT

ION

AL

CO

-OP

ER

AT

ION

ON

TH

ES

IS, A

SV

IEW

ED

BY

PH

.D.'S

AN

DE

D.D

.'S

Deg

ree

of s

atis

fact

ion

Ph.

D.

Ed.

DT

otal

Num

ber

Per

cent

23

Num

ber

Per

cent

Num

ber

Per

cent

45

67

Ext

rem

ely

satis

fact

ory

330

38.2

%55

333

.0%

883

34.7

%

Hig

hly

satis

fact

ory

289

33.4

685

40.8

974

38.3

Mod

erat

ely

satis

fact

ory.

.12

914

.927

216

.240

115

.8

Rat

her

unsa

tisfa

ctor

y..

465.

364

3.8

110

4.2

Com

plet

ely

unsa

tisfa

ctor

y24

2.8

281.

752

2.0

No

resp

onse

and

inap

plic

able

. ....

475.

475

4.5

122

5.0

TO

tal

865

100.

0%16

7710

0.0%

2542

100.

0%

TA

BLE

117

.--A

DE

QU

AC

YO

F L

IBR

AR

Y F

OR

TH

ES

ISW

OR

K

Deg

ree

of s

atis

fact

ion

Num

ber

Perc

ent

12

3

Ext

rem

ely

unsa

tisfa

ctor

y12

24.

8%

=R

athe

r un

satis

fact

ory

166

6.5

=M

oder

atel

y sa

tisfa

ctor

y44

417

.5

=H

ighl

y sa

tisfa

ctor

y94

437

.1

w.,,

1E

xtre

mel

y sa

tisfa

ctor

y83

532

.8

Com

,N

o re

spon

se a

nd in

appl

icab

le31

1.3

Tot

al25

4210

0.0%

TA

BLE

118

.--A

VA

ILA

BIL

ITY

OF

FA

CIL

ITIE

Sa

FO

RT

HE

SIS

WO

RK

, AS

VIE

WE

DB

Y P

H.D

.'S A

ND

ED

.D.'S

Deg

ree

of s

atis

fact

ion

Ph.

D.

Ed

DT

otal

Num

ber

Per

cent

Num

ber

Per

cent

Num

ber

Per

cent

12

34

56

7

Ext

rem

ely

satis

fact

ory

230

26.6

%29

717

.7%

527

20.7

%

Hig

hly

satis

fact

ory

224

25.9

410

24.4

634

24.9

Mod

erat

ely

satis

fact

ory

167

19.3

372

22.2

539

21.2

Rat

her

unsa

tisfa

ctor

y68

7.9

187

11.2

255

10.0

Ext

rem

ely

unsa

tisfa

ctor

y74

8.6

133

7.9

207

8.2

No

resp

onse

and

inap

plic

able

102

11.7

178

16.6

380

15.0

Tot

al86

510

0.0%

1677

100.

0%25

4210

0.0%

°F

or c

ompi

ling,

tabu

latin

g, a

nd c

ompu

ting

data

.

Chapter VII

THE PERIOD OF RESIDENCYFor the purposes of this study, the period of

residency was loosely defined. No strict, invariabledefinition was possible because of the numerous in-stitutional definitions of the term. Residency wasdefined in the questionnaire as that period of time indoctoral work when the academic program was theprimary interest and responsibility of the respondent.This broad definition had the advantage of minimiz-ing failures to respond because of a deviation froman institutional definition of residence; similarly,those who actually had no period of residency werenot prevented from responding. However, to in-crease preciseness, those who specifically statedthat a period of residency was not required were notincluded in the coding of items on finance antassistantships .1 /

How was the period of residency financed? Itappears as a fact of primary significance that eachindividual made use of two or three sources of in-come during this period (see Table 119). Evidencefrom the supplementary forms indicates further thatthese sources were used concurrently rather than atdifferent times. It also seems that the group wasself-supporting in the sense that respondents gen-erally were not financed by gifts from parents orrelatives. The most common financial sources werepersonal savings (46.4 percent), assistantships (38.3percent), "GI Bill" (35.9 percent), and spouses'earnings (27.5 percent). Even during residency 19.9percent taught outside the university, and 20.3 per-cent were involved in other work outside the univer-sity. Even though the "GI Bill" was indicated asa major source of income, it is interesting to notethat the proportion of respondents who used veterans'benefits in the period of residency is only 35.9 per-cent as compared with the 41.1 percent who included,this as a factor which made it possible to embarkupon the doctoral program. It was assumed that ex-pirations account for this difference.

The Ed.D.'s and Ph.D.'s did not differ in theextent to which they used scholarships, fellowships,or awards as a source of income. Nor was thereany great variation among respondents from thevarious major fields (see Table 120). Of the totalgroup of respondents, 22.2 percent received scholar-ships, fellowships, or awards. Approximately 30percent of the majors in mathematics or science,secondary education, and student personnel adminis-tration had these awards, but only about 15 percentof the majors in physical education and in guidanceheld such awards. The proportion of indkridualsholding scholarships, and other awards, ranged from78.9 percent to 0.0 percent in the 38 largest institu-tions. Many scholarships must bave been of smallvalue for they were seldom described as major

sources of income (5.9 percent). A number of theseawards were apparently for tuition only.

The Ed.D.'s and Ph.D.'s differ significantly asto the number of respondents who held assistant-ships ( p < .001). The Ph.D.'s held more assistant-ships than did the Ed.D.'s (see Table 121). No majorfield was conspicuously low in assistantships. Grad-uates in special education, practical arts, and edu-cational psychology reported assistantships for morethan 48 percent in each field (see Table 122). Theseexceed the expectation one would have after studyingTable 122. Universities varied markedly in the pro-portion of their students holding assistantships, Therange was from 74.3 percent to 12.3 percent. Cer-tain parts of the evidence about institutions seemedto indicate the possibility of an inverse relationshipbetween critical periods and assistantships. A small,but significant, rank correlation of .39 was found toexist between the responses on these two items. In-spection of the data revealed that the deviations inorder were actually quite small for all but three in-stitutions. When these three universities were re-moved, the correlation became .69. There appearsto have been no such relationship between the awardof scholarships, fellowships, and other awards and theincidence of critical periods. When scholarships,fellowships, and other awards were combined withassistantships to obtain an index of institutional aidto the student, the correlation with incidence ofcritical periods approached zero.

A correlation of .52 was noted between rankorder of institutions based upon the proportion ofrespondents holding scholarships, fellowships, andother awards and inverted rank order based uponthe frequency with which respondents indicated thatproximity was a factor in the choice of an institution.This would seem to suggest that some individualswill attend universities which are close by even'though no scholarships and fellowships have beenoffered. It also seems to suggest that financialawards do serve as an inducement when proximityis inoperative, but these data are insufficient toprovide adequate support for this hypothesis.

A higher proportion of the Ed.D.'s receivedleave with pay than did the Ph.D.'s ( p < .01) (seeTable 123).

Veterans' benefits were equally available toPh.D.'s and Ed.D.'s, but these funds were not equallyavailable to persons enrolled in the various majorfields (see Table 124). The proportion of recipientsof veterans' benefits was high in administration(44.1 percent) and student personnel administration(45.4 percent). It was low for majors in curriculum

1/ A group of 110 of these persons (4.6 percent) was not included in the analysis of these two items.

65

66

(23.5 percent), social foundations (23.8 percent), andpractical arts (25.8 percent). These differences arepartially attributable to sex; that is, fields dominatedby men showed higher proportions utilizing the "GIBill" than did other fields.

The Ph.D.'s and Ed.D.'s also differed in theextent to which they depended upon savings ( p < .05),earnings from teaching outside the university ( p <.05), and earnings from other work outside the uni-versity ( p < .001) (see Tables 125, 126, and 127).The Ed.D. 's frequently used savings and teaching out-side the university as sources of income. ThePh.D.'s were more frequently employed in "otherwork outside the university."

Table 128 reveals that the universities them-selves were the most prominent donors of scholar-ships and fellowships, and Table 129 shows thatcolleges and universities granted the most leaveswith pay. It may come as a surprise to some to seehow many school districts granted leaves for doc-toral study. Very few respondents used loans. Themost frequent source of loans was relatives; univer-sities made loans almost as frequently (see Table130).

The most frequent work assignment for assist-ants was teaching (27.2 percent). Assistance to in-structors and research constituted the major assign-ments of others who held assistantships (see Table131). The major fields varied as to type of assist-antships held. Teaching positions were numerousin special education, physical education, practicalarts, and mathematics or science (see Table 132).Educational psychology seemed to dominate in re-search assistantships; for subject areas and physicaleducation, these positions were practically non-

existent (see Table 133). As one would expect,guidance, clinical psychology, student personnel ad-ministration, and educational psychology majorsdominated the guidance and counseling work (seeTable 134). And in supervisicn of student teaching,the majors in subject areas, curriculum, and ele-mentary education outnumbered all others (seeTable 135).

The most common form of housing used duringresidency was either rented apartments or roomsoff campus (38.5 percent). Surprisingly, the nextmost frequent situation was self-owned houses(21.8 percent). Residence halls and rented housesaccounted for the majority of the remainder (seeTable 136). Only 25.8 percent of the sample indi-cated housing problems (see Table 137). While thisis not a significantly large group, it may representa major factor in specific institutions. In otherwords, it is more likely to be a local than a generalproblem, although this hypothesis has not beenchecked. Among those who did indicate housingproblems, cost was the most significant cause(53.1 percent). Poor quality of available housing(27.6 percent) and inadequacy for family needs (31.6percent) were mentioned somewhat less 2-..c.quently(see Table 138). Table 139 indicates that the "aver-age" respondent was responsible for the housing ofthree to four persons, including himself.

Table 140 reveals that 49.1 percent of the samplereceived total or paltial aid in paying their tuitionand fees during most of their program. The Ph.D.'sreceived aid more frequently from the universitiesthan did the Ed.D.'s ( p < .001). Among the varioussources other than the university which aided inpayment of tuition and fees, the "G1 Bill" was citedby 81.9 percent of the respondents (see Table 141).

TABLE 119.--SOURCES OF FINANCE DURING RESIDENCY, BY LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE

SourcesA significant

sourceThe most significant

sourceNumber Percent Number Percent

1 2 3 4 5

Scholarship, fellowship, or award 414 16.3% 5.9%Assistantship or other university position 630 24.8 34416 13.5Leave with pay 160 6.3 128 5.0"GI Bill" 609 24.0 302 11.9Loans 277 10.9 45 1.8Savings 909 35.8 270 10.6Earnings of spouse 423 16.6 276 10.9Teaching outside university 253 10.0 252 9.9Other work outside university 352 13.8 164 6.5Other

Gifts 54 2.1 31 1.2Investment income 24 0.9 10 0.4Full-time employment 77 3.0 48 1.9Administrative internship . 7 0.3 10 0.4Armed forces 22 0.9 5 0.2Sponsored projects 4 0.2 5 0.2Other 46 1.8 20 0.8

00075

67

TABLE 120.--SCHOLARSHIPS, FELLOWSHIPS, AND OTHER AWARDS AS FINANCIAL SOURCES,BY LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE FOR MAJOR FIELDS


sourceThe most signif-

icant source No response Number

1 2 3 4 5


TABLE 121.--ASSISTANTSHIPS AS A SOURCE OF FINANCE DURINGRESIDENCY, BY LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE FOR PH.D.'S AND ED.D.'S

Rating of factorPh.D. Ed.D.


A significant factor 229 26.5% 401 23.9%The most significant factor . 159 18.4 185 11.0No response 477 55.0 1091 65.1

Total 865 100.0% 1677 100.0%

TABLE 122.--ASSISTANTSHIPS AS A SCURCE OF FINANCE DURING RESIDENCY,BY LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE FOR MAJOR FIELDS



icant source No response Number

1 2 3 4 5

Special education 44.0% 6.0% 50.0% 50Administration 21.4 11.0 67.6 621Curriculum 27.8 14.8 57.4 115Physical education 27.1 14.0 58.9 107Practical arts 28.1 20.3 51.6 128Social foundations 23.8 6.3 69.9 63Subject areas. . . . . . .. . . . . ..... 25.6 7.9 66.5 164Mathematics or science 20.8 11.7 67.5 77Educational psychology 30.9 18.8 50.3 149Secondary education 27.3 17.2 55.5 99Elementary education 28.5 13.8 57.7 130Higher education 25.4 8.5 66.1 71Guidance . . ... . . . . . . . ... . . . . 20.8 15.0 64.2 173Clinical psychology 25.5 12.2 62.3 98Student personnel administration. . . 31.8 13.6 54.6 44

68

TABLE 123.--LEAVE WITH PAY AS A SOURCE OF FINANCE DURINGRESIDENCY, BY LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE FOR PH.D.'S AND ED.D.'S

Rating of sourcePh.D. Ed. D.


A significant source 47 5.4% 113 6.7%The most significant source . . 26 3.0 102 6.1No response 792 91.6 1462 87.2

Total 865 100.0% 1677 100.0%

TABLE 124.--THE "GI BILL" AS A SOURCE OF FINANCE DURING RESIDENCY,BY LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE FOR MAJOR FIELDS



icant source No response Number1 2 3 4 5

Special education 18.0% 12.0% 70.0% 50Administration 31.2 12.9 55.9 621Curriculum 15.7 7.8 76.5 115Physical education 23.3 13.1 63.6 107Practical arts 15.6 10.2 74.2 128Social foundations 9.5 14.3 76.2 63Subject areas 25.0 14.6 60.4 164Mathematics or science 27.3 15.6 57.1 77Educational psychology 21.5 9.4 69.1 149Secondary education 23.2 15.2 61.6 99Elementary education 23.1 7.7 69.2 130Higher education 19.7 14.1 66.2 71Guidance 22.0 13.9 64.2 173Clinical psychology 22.4 11.2 66.3 98Student personnel administration. . 31.8 13.6 54.5 44

TABLE 125.--SAV1NGS AS A SOURCE OF FINANCEBY LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE FOR PH.D.'S

DURING RESIDENCY,AND ED.D.'S

Rating of sourcePh.D. Ed. D.


A significant source 286 33.1% 623 37.1%The most significant source . 77 8.9 193 11.5No response 502 58.0 861 51.4

Total 865 100.0% 1677 100.0%

TABLE 126.--TEACHING OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSITY AS A SOURCEOF FINANCE DURING RESIDENCY, BY LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE

FOR PH.D.'S AND ED.D.'S

Rating of sourcePh.D. Ed.D.


A significant source 75 8.7% 178 10.6%The most significant source . 68 7.9 184 11.0No response . . . . . . . . . . 722 83.4 1315 78.4

Total .. . ... . . . . . 865 100.0% 1677 100.0%

TABLE 127.--OTHER WORK OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSITY AS A SOURCE OFFINANCE DURING RESIDENCY, BY LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE

FOR PH.D.'S AND ED.D.'S

Rating of sourcePh.D. Ec. D.


A significant source 151 17.5% 201 12.0%The most significant source . . 69 8.0 95 5.7No response 645 74.5 1381 82.3

Total 865 100.0% 1677 100.07

TABLE 128.--SOURCES OF SCHOLARSHIPS, FELLOWSHIPS,AND OTHER AWARDS

Sources of awards Of totalOf those

holding awardsPercent Percent Number

1 2 3 4

University 11.4% 56.9% 291State veteran's organization or fund. . 0.7 3.7 19State department of education 0.6 3.1 16Foundation or institute 4.6 23.1 118Business or industry 0.6 2.7 14School district 0.1 0.4 2Other 0.9 4.3 22No response, but scholarship held. 1.1 5.8 29No response, no scholarship held . 79.9 0.0 2031

Total 100.0% 100.0% 2542

TABLE 129.--ORGANIZATIONS GRANTING LEAVE

Organization Of totalPercent

Of thosehaving leave

Percent Number

1 2 3 4

College or university . . . . . . . . ... 5.9% 56.2% 149Public School district . . . . .. . . . 3.3 31.7 84Business or industry. . . 0.2 1.5 4Service organization. . . . . . . . 0.9 8.7 23No response, but on leave . . . . . . . . . 0.2 1.9 5No response, no leave . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.5 2277

Total 100.0% 100.0% 2542

00078

69

70

TABLE 130.--LENDING AGENCIES FOR DOCTORAL WORK

Lending agencies Of totalOf those

using loansPercent Percent Number

1 2 3 4

College or university 3.1% 27.7% 79Friends 0.7 6.3 18Relatives 3.1 28.1 80Bank 1.9 17.2 49Credit union 0.6 5.3 15Foundation 0.2 1.8 5Organizational loan 0.6 5.6 16Other 0.6 5.6 16No response, but loans used 0.3 2.4 7No response, no loans used 88.9 2257

Total 100.0% 100.0% 2542

TABLE 131.- -DUTIES OF ASSISTANTSa

Duties performed Number Percent1 2 3

Teaching 691 27.2%Research 351 13.8Guidance, counseling 160 6.3Clinical work 61 2.4Assistant to instructor 354 13.9Placement 33 1.3Administration or supervision 125 4.9Supervising student teachers 154 6.1Other

Design or production of instructional materials 6 0.2Consultant 12 0.5Other 116 4.6

aThe percents presented in the table relate: to the total sample. However, itshould be remembered tiL,t only approximately 53% of the sample held assistant-ships. The percent, then, could be corrected by dividing each number by the appro-priate divisor (sea Table 110).

TABLE 132. -- INCIDENCE OF TEACHINGASSISTANTSHIPS, BY MAJOR, FIELDS

TABLE 133.--INCIDENCE OF RESEARCHASSISTANTSHIPS, BY MAJOR FIELDS

Major field Number Percent Major field Number Percent1 2 3 1 2 3

Special education 50 40.0% Special education 50 18.0%Administration 621 15.1 Administration 621 17.1Curriculum 115 23.5 Curriculum 115 13.0Physical education 107 42.1 Physical education 107 2.8Practical arts 128 41.4 Practical arts 128 18.0Social foundations 63 31.7 Social foundations 63 15.9Subject areas 164 32.3 Subject areas 164 1.8Mathematics or science. . . . 77 40.3 Mathematics or science. . 77 7:8Educational psychology . . . . 149 32.9 Educational psychology . . . . 149 22.8Secondary education 99 31.3 Secondary education . . . . . 99 16.2Elementary education 130 30.0 Elementary education 130 10.8Higher education 71 29.6 Higher education 71 11.3Guidance 173 20.2 Guidance 173 9.2Clinical psychology 98 21.4 Clinical psychology 98 13.3Student personnel Student personnel

administration 44 15.9 administration 44 13.6

000'

71

TABLE 134.--INCIDENCE OF GUIDANCE ORCOUNSELING ASSISTANTSHIPS,

BY MAJOR FIELDS

TABLE 135.--INCIDENCE OF ASSISTANTSHIPSINVOLVING SUPERVISION OF STUDENT

TEACHING, BY MAJOR FIELDS

Major field Number Percent Major field Number Percent1 2 3 1 2 3

Special education 50 2.0% Special education 50 6.0%Administration 621 1.0 Administration 621 2.7Curriculum 115 2.6 Curriculum 115 15.7Physical education 107 2.8 Physical education 107 4.7Practical arts 128 3.9 Practical arts 128 3.1Social foundations 63 4.8 Social foundations 63 6.3Subject areas 164 4.9 Subject areas 164 13.4Mathematics or science . . 77 Mathematics and science . 77 7.8Educational psychology . . . 149 15.4..4 Educational psychology . . . 149 4.7Secondary education 99 1.0 Secondary education . . . . 199 4.0Elementary education . . . . 130 5.4 Elementary education 130 15.4Higher education 71 7.0 Higher education 71 1.4Guidance 173 20.2 Guidance 173 1.7Clinical psychology 98 19.4 Clinical psychology 98 1.0Student personnel Student personnel

administration 44 20.5 administration 44 4.5

TABLE 136.--TYPES OF HOUSING USED WHILE IN RESIDENCE

Types of housing Housing usedHousing most

often usedNumber Percent Number Percent

1 2 3 4 5

Residence hall 217 8.5% 215 8.5%University apartments 104 4.1 207 8.1Veteran's housing 67 2.6 158 6.2Rented apartment or room off campas . 352 13.8 627 24.7Trailer (owned) 12 0.5 13 0.5Trailer (rented) 12 0.5 7 0.3House (owned) 133 5.2 423 16.6House (rented) 153 6.0 204 8.0Housing rent-free for services 21 0.8 25 1.0Other

Lived with family 35 1.4 66 2.6Commuted 13 0.5 27 1.1Other 44 1.7 60 2.4

TABLE 137.--INCIDENCE OF HO 'SING PROBLEMS

Response

1

Number Percent2 3

25.8%74.2

100.0%

Housing problems occurredNo housing problems occurred . . . ..; . .

Total .

6551887'

72

TABLE 138.--CAUSES OF HOUSING PROBLEMSOf thoseindicating

Causal factors Of total problems.Percent Percent Number

1 2 3 4Inadeate iterms of family needs 8.1% 31.6% 207Lack o'.: .:Ivailability 4.1 15.7 103Lack ,g aid in securing adequate housing . . 1.7 6.4 42Poor quality of available housing 7.1 27.6 181High cost 13.7 53.1 348Other 2.8 11.0 72

TABLE 139.--NUMBER OF PERSONS HOUSED WHILE IN RESIDENCENumber housed Number Percent

1 2

One 468 18.4%Two 398 15.8Three 389 15.3Four 540 21.2Five 248 9.8Six 97 3.8Seven 23 0.9Eight 7 0.3Nine or more 3 0.1No response 369 14.5

Total 2542 100.0%

TABLE 140.--METHOD USED TO PAY TUITION AND FEES, BY PH.D.'S AND ED.D.'S

Method of paymentPh.D. Ed.D. Total


Paid by self 402 46.5% 795 47.4% 1197 47.1%Paid partially by self 4 0.5 3 0.2 7 0.3Paid by university 90 10.4 78 4.7 168 6.6Paid partially by university 96 11.1 151 9.0 247 9.7Paid by another organization 141 16.3 318 19.0 459 18.1Paid partially by another organization , 108 12.5 244 14.5 352 13.8Other 8 0.9 8 0.5 16 0.6No response 16 1.8 80 4.7 96 3.8

Total 865 100.0% 1677 100.0% 2542 100.0%

TABLE 141.--SOURCES OF AID, OTHER THAN UNIVERSITY,IN PAYMENT OF TUITION AND FEES

Type.organization

1

Of thoseOf total receiving aidPercent Percent Number

2 3 4"GI Bill" or Veteran's .Adminisuation. . . . 26.1% 81.9% 664Foundation or institute . . . . . . : .."...... . . 3.6 11.2 91State veteran's organization 1.0 3.2 26Business or industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.5 4

1.8 5.5 45NOresponse, but aid received 0.7 2.2 .18No'response, no aid '. .:: . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.6. 1694

Total . 100.0% 2542

ti

00081

Chapter VIII

SINCE THE DEGREE

It was imperative that an employment census beincluded in this study. For AACTE and for theprofession as a whole, it seemed desirable to havefacts concerning the employment of persons with newdoctorates in education. It was not expected that allwould accept similar employment, but there was un-certainty as to where current boundaries of oppor-tunity might lie for these people.

During the academic year 1958-59, teaching wasthe primary duty of 50.4 percent of the respondents;nonteaching positions were held by 49 percent of thegroup (see Table 142). Colleges, universities, andpublic schools entered into contract with 84.1 percentof the group; colleges and universities alone em-ployed 57 percent (see Table 143). It is difficult toestimate how many of the remaining 16 percent arelost to professional education, but it appears thatonly about 5 percent left the field completely. Theproportion of Ed.D.'s and Ph.D.'s who taught is quitesimilar, but the two populations are otherwise dis-similar. A greater proportion of the Ed.D.'s wereengaged in administration; a greater proportion ofPh.D.'s were involved in personnel work. TheEd.D.'s and Ph.D.'s frequently were employed bydifferent types of organizations. Only 15.3 percentof the Ph.D.'s held public school positions. The per-centage of Ed.D.'s in college and university positionswas slightly lower than for Ph.D.'s, but not greatlyso. Considerably more Ph.D.'s held jobs in thecategory, "other public supported institutions." Itwas not unexpected that graduates in the, variousmajor fields would be employed in different types ofpositions and in a variety of organizations. Thedifferences are readily apparent (see Table 144).Using 50.4 percent as, the expected proportion ofgraduates in teaching (see Table 142), it appearsthat clinical psychology (27.6 percent), administra-tion (31.2 percent) and guidance (34.1 percent) sentrelatively few of their graduates into teaching,whereas subject matter fields (81.1 percent), second-ary education (72.7 percent), mathematics or science84.4 percent), and physical education (73.8 percent)seemed to send a high proportion of graduates intoteaching. Higher education sent the greatest propor-tion of graduates into colleges and universities(85.9 percent); the practical arts (78.9 percent), thesubject matter areas (76.3 percent), and physicaleducation (75.7 percent) follow closely behind (see.Table 145).

Institutions differed in the proportion of grad-uates who were employed in public school positions'in 1958-5921 The range was from 56.0 percent .to2.2 .percent. was!noted previouslj, that institutionsalso vary,markedly in the prOPortion of graduates.

who held public school positions prior to receipt ofthe doctoral degree. When institutional rank basedupon number of registrants employed by publicschools just prim to receipt of the degree wascorrelated with rank based upon number of individ-uals in public school positions in 1958-59, the re-sult was .71. This tends to confirm the thought thatuniversities which draw large numbers of doctoralstudents from the public schools return large num-bers of doctoral recipients to the public school.However, in terms of the proportion of doctoralrecipients returned to the public schools, the rela-tionship is an inverse one.

The data presented in Table 146 provide impor-tant information concerning the impact of the 91institutional programs upon the supply of top-levelleadership for teacher education. Approximatelytwo-thirds of the respondents considered themselvesinvolved in teacher education; just over one-fourthindicated that they definitely were not involved inteacher education. Practical arts, curriculum, ele-mentary and secondary education majors had highproportions in teacher education, while clinicalpsychology, student personnel administration, andguidance majors were least often involved (see Table147). Among the 38 highest producing institutions,the proportion of gray ivates entering teacher educa-tion varied from 89.6 percent to 39.1 percent. It isdifficult to attribute this great range to the operationof any single factor, but one cannot help but surmisethat the kinds of programs offered or emphasized,the kinds of persons attracted by the institution andits programs, and the purposes and philosophies ofthe departments all operate to guide graduates intoor away from teacher education positions.

The perceived importance of student-staff rela-tionships was re-emphasized in responses to theinstruction to "indicate the source of greatestassistance" in obtaining a position (see Table 148).The 2542 respondents held 3071 positions in theacademic years 1957-58 and 1958-59. In approxi-mately 28 percent of the instances graduates gavegreatest credit to the teaching faculty of their doc-toral institution. If one adds to, this the 13.3 percentwho credited its placement office, approximately 40percent of the placements were attributed in greatmeasure to efforts of staff in the degree-grantinginstitution. The other primary sources of assistancewere representatives of the employing organization(17.1 percent) and the efforts of the respondentsthemselves (138 percent). Approximately 11 per-cent of the positions were filled by the return ofgraduates to positions or systeirus in which they hadbeen previously employed.

! /Data fur 1957-58 positions are tabulated in Appendix A, but are not interpreted because of uncertaintyas to which` were post-doctoral positions.

73

000S2

TA

BL

E 1

42.-

-TY

PES

OF

POSI

TIO

NS

HE

LD

BY

PH

.D.'S

AN

D E

D.D

.'SD

UR

ING

TH

E A

CA

DE

MIC

YE

AR

195

8-59

Typ

es o

f-po

sitio

ns

Ph

.D .

Ed

.DT

otal

Num

ber

Per

cent

Num

ber

Per

cent

Num

ber

Percent

I2

34

56

7

Tea

chin

gin

clud

ing

a. S

uper

visi

on o

f:stu

dent

teac

hing

unl

ess

spec

ifica

llyst

ated

as

bein

g an

adm

inis

trat

ive

posi

tion

...A

dmin

iitia

tion=

incl

udin

ga.

Res

earc

hln

'adm

inis

trat

ion

b. 'P

ublic

rel

atio

nsc

Bus

ines

s m

anag

er.d

. Bui

ldin

g an

d eq

uipm

ent a

naly

st o

r sp

ecia

list

Per

sonn

el,s

ervi

ces-

incl

udin

ga.

Dire

ctor

t-an

d su

perv

isor

s..

b.. H

eads

-Of-

test

ing

serv

ice

Inst

ruct

iOna

l ser

vice

s-in

clud

ing

a. D

irect

ori,

coor

dina

tors

and

sup

ervi

sors

b. C

onsu

ltant

."

c. D

irect

ors

of te

stin

g di

rect

ly r

elat

ed to

inst

ruct

ion

Oth

er ..

......

.. ...

. . -

. . .

: ...

.....

.. N

o re

spO

nse

Tot

al

458

144

122 85 48 8

52.9

%

16.6

14.1 9.8

5.7

0.9

824

537 96 177 385

49.1

%

32.0 5.7

10.6 2.3

0.3

1282 68

1

218

262 86 13

50.4%

26.8 8.6

10.3

3.3

0.6

865

100.

0%16

7710

0.0%

2542

100.

0%

TA

BL

E 1

43.-

-TY

PES

OF

OR

GA

NIZ

AT

ION

S E

MPL

OY

ING

PH.D

:S A

ND

ED

.D.'S

FOR

TH

E A

CA

DE

MIC

YE

AR

195

8-59

Typ

es o

f org

aniz

atio

nsP

h .D

.E

d.D

.T

otal

Num

ber

Per

cent

Num

ber

Per

cent

Num

ber

Per

cent

12

34

56

7

Pub

lic s

choo

l dis

tric

t13

215

.3%

557

33.2

%68

927.1%

Col

lege

or

univ

ersi

ty52

660

.892

455

.114

5057.0

Ser

vice

org

aniz

atio

n13

115

.214

38-

523

410.8

Bus

ines

s or

indu

stry

36

4.2

161.

052

2.0

Oth

er25

2.9

231.

34C

1.9

No

resp

onse

151.

614

0.9

291.2

Tot

al86

510

0.0%

1677

100.

C%

2542

100.

0%

Maj

Or

field

TA

BLE

144

.--T

YP

ES

OF

PO

SIT

ION

S H

ELD

BY

TH

E V

AR

IOU

S M

AJO

RS

DU

RIN

G T

HE

AC

AD

EM

IC Y

EA

R 1

958-

59

Adm

inis

-P

erso

nnel

Inst

ruct

iona

lT

each

ing

trat

ion

serv

ices

serv

ices

Oth

erN

o re

spon

seN

umbe

r

1

Spe

cial

edU

c.at

i011

.... .

Adm

inis

trat

ion

Cur

ricul

um...

....

Phy

sica

l- ed

ucat

ion.

. . .

...P

ract

ical

art

s .

.. .

Soc

ial f

ound

atio

ns

Sub

ject

are

as,..

......

..M

athe

mat

ics

Or.

sci

ence

....

Edu

catio

nal p

sych

olog

y

Sec

onda

ry e

duca

tion

.....

Ele

men

tary

edu

catio

n ...

..H

ighe

r .s

duba

tion.

.... .

.. ..

GU

icka

tae.

.. .

. . .

:.Stu

dent

laer

ionn

el :a

dmin

isfr

atto

n

23

45

67

848

.0%

14.0

%16

.0%

22.0

%50

31.2

55.9

2.4

8.2

2.0%

.3%

621

58.3

22.6

2.6

13.9

2.6

115

73.8

11.2

2.8

10.3

1.9

...10

770

.313

.33.

111

.71.

612

869

.814

.31.

64.

86.

43:1

63

81.1

7.,"

2.4

6.1

1.8

.716

484

.453

.06.

511

.42.

617.4

6.5

14.8

i:i

ban .7

77 149

72.7

18.2

8.1

...1.

099

62.3

26.2

i:i

7.7

2.3

...13

059

.225

.41.

411

.32.

7...

71

34.1

22.5

27.2

11.0

4.6

.617

327

.68.

243

.96.

112

.22.

098

18.2

50.0

18.2

11.4

2.2

...44

TA

BLE

145

.--T

YP

ES

OF

OR

GA

NIZ

AT

ION

S E

MP

LOY

ING

TH

E V

AR

IOU

S M

AJO

RS

FO

R T

HE

AC

AD

EM

IC Y

EA

R 1

958-

59

Maj

or fi

eld

1

Spe

cial

edu

catio

nA

dmin

istr

atio

nC

urric

ulum

Phy

sica

l edu

catio

n ...

..P

ract

ical

art

s, ..

......

...S

ocia

l 'fo

unda

tions

....

.S

ubje

ct a

reas

.....

......

.M

athe

mat

ics

or s

cien

ce.

Edu

catio

nal p

sych

olog

y.

Sec

onda

ry e

duca

tion

.-

Ele

men

tary

edu

catio

nH

ighe

r ed

ucat

ion-

.

Gui

danc

e .

......

. ....

.C

linic

al p

sych

olog

y...

.....

Stu

dent

per

sonn

el a

dmin

istr

atio

n

Pub

licsc

hool

dist

rict

Col

lege

or

univ

ersi

tyS

ervi

ceor

gani

zatio

nB

usin

ess

orin

dust

ryO

ther

No

resp

onse

Num

ber

23

45

67

8

34.0

%40

.0%

26.0

%50

52.1

38.4

7.3

1.0%

.4%

.8%

621

27.8

60.0

10.4

.9.9

115

15.0

75.7

7.5

.9.9

107

10.2

78.9

9.4

.7.8

128

15.7

68.3

4.8

3.2

4.8

3.2

63

14.6

76.3

6.1

1.2

.61.

216

427

.368

.83.

977

16.8

61.0

16.2

i:

2.1.3

149

26.3

69.7

4.0

....

9928

.565

.33.

8.8

.8.8

130

1.4

85.9

4.2

4.2

4.3

71

20.8

52.0

16.3

5.2

4.0

1.7

173

8.2

39.7

37.8

2.0

9.2

3.1

9818

.265

.96.

84.

52.

32.

344

76

TABLE 146.--INCIDENCE OF INVOLVEMENT IN TEACHER EDUCATION, 1958-59


Involved in teacher education 1678 66.0%Not involved in teacher education 690 27.2Involved part time in teacher education 23 0.9No response 151 5,9

Total 2542 100.0%

TABLE 147.--INCIDENCE OF INVOLVEMENT IN TEACHER EDUCATION, 1958-59, BY MAJOR FIELDS

Major field

Involved inteacher

education

Not involvedin teachereducation Part time No response Number

1 2 3 4 5 6

Special education 64.0% 30.0% 6.0% 50Administration 64,4 27.7 .6% 7.2 621Curriculum 80.9 14.8 .9 3.5 115

Physical education 40.1 9.7 .5 1.4 107Practical arts 78.1 19.5 .8 1.6 128Social foundations 73.0 15.9 11.1 63

Subject areas .. 65.9 29.3 .6 4.3 164Mathematics or science 72.7 24.7 1.3 1.3 77Educational psychology 59.1 32.9 .7 7.4 149

Secondary education 81.8 16.2 2.0 99Elementary education 88.5 5.4 1.5 4.6 130Higher education 60.6 32.4 1.4 5.6 71

Guidance 50.9 41.0 1.2 6.9 173Clinical psychology 45.9 42.9 11.2 98Student personnel administration 54.5 38.6 . 6.8 44

TABLE 148.--SOURCES OF ASSISTANCE IN OBTAINING POSITIONS

Sources of assistance Number °

1 2

Percent

3

Major professor or adviser ..... . . . ..... ..Other staff members . . ' 111 '10

Placement office of docteral Institution. . . . .Representative of employing organization or institution... . ....Placement office of another institution .Commercial employment agency . ......'. . . ...Professional organization (AAuP). ..... ... .....Other

None--fornierly worIced in.system . .. . .. .f..;. Self ... ..... . : . .

Friends . . , .None returned iolormerProfessional colleagues , ,.Former enrOloYer, . .. :; . .Other . , :,

588267408525

596841

19..1%8.7

13.317.11.92.21.3

66 2.1424 13.8

82 2.7280 9.164 2.120 0.7

179 5.9

410

table" refeis not to individuals' but to number ofand 19587,5,St,'4helnili4cluali in the sample. (2542) were :InvGivethese

3071 :100.0%

;Hans, In all, over the two icademic, years, 1957 -58in 3071:: pOsitlone, ,Therefol-e; the percents are based on

.

Chapter IX

SOME COMMENTS OF RESPONDENTS

A questionnaire returned without some kind ofsummary comment, or without some qualified orelaborated comments, was the exception rather thanthe rule. These comments often dealt with somecondition or situation unique to the individual. How-ever, these comments frequently reflected a generalkind of reaction which the respondent seemed to feelwas a condition of the program. While this feelingon the part of the respondent may not be an accurate,factual description of the program, it is a fact thatthis is the way he feels.

The comments contained in this chapter werechosen because they seem to capture certain moodsor feelings which could not be obtained by question-naire items. Granted the subjective nature of suchevidence, it is presented, nevertheless, as food forthought. Actual comments of respondents are usedto limit somewhat the subjective views of the re-porter.

The purpose of a study and the instruments usedcan promote positive or negative attitudes on the partof those who are asked to serve as subjects. Ifthere is a general feeling that the study is not im-portant, or that it is unlikely to contribute to thesolution of a significant problem, this feeling islikely to be reflected in the responses of the sub-jects. If the measuring instruments are felt to beinadequate, poorly organized, invalid, or too long,the responses are again likely to be affected. How-ever, the feeling is not likely to be unanimous ineither a positive or a negative direction no matterhow significant the problem or how adequate theinstruments.

At one point in the questionnaire, respondentswere asked if they wished to be informed when thestudy was completed. If replies can be used as anindex of reaction to the study, the total response washighly favorable, for 92.5 percent responded posi-tively (see Table 149). Unsolicited comments onthis point are exemplified by statements such asthe following: "I consider this document as a con-siderable imposition, but I hope something interestinghappens as a result of the data you gather...." and"Now you have a lot of 'facts' to play statisticswith. If they help to defray the cost, of graduatestudy, fine; if they even help someone pull through,fine; but If they just chalk up.one more degree forsomeone, I'm afraid it; is an imposition."; "Thankyou for the opportunity of participating in thisstudy...."; "I would be very interested in and desir-ous of the results of,this inquiry....thestudy shouldhave great value. to 'future doctoral candidates andexcellent reference to those, who have. completedtheir work."

1/This; individual majored in nursing. education

Comments regarding the questionnaire weredivided. Some of the graduates wrote as follows:"This questionnaire certainly seems to get to thecore of the matter...."; "A most thorough question-naire, Congratulations. This is a worthwhile effort.I hope many of the suggestions from the study canbe implemented! "; "I'd like copies of the question-naire for teaching purposes, if available--it's ex-tremely well done...."; "It was a pleasure tofill outthis questionnaire--your arrangement was perfect--easily understood and compact...."; "This is reallya soul-searching questionnaire. I have endeavoredto be exceedingly candid. The completed study shouldbe a most interesting document." Others said:"This questionnaire misses completely some of themost significant points regarding graduate study.... ";"You ask too many things for most recipients to re-spond, I feel...."; "This form seemed not too appro-priate at times for one teaching in professionalschools, and selecting teaching after basic profes-sional preparation, as a means of promoting improvedservice of the profession. Nor do your questionsor perhaps my answers, seem to suggest the at-mosphere and work experienced by me while work-ing on my dissertation...."I/; "An admirable proj-ect--questionnaire too long...."; "It would surpriseme if any one couldfilIthe form out intelligently in anhour....1 have read again the purpose of the ques-tionnaire and I believe I could provide you with thenecessary data in an organized way, under topics,in a form that would have given you far greaterunderstanding than the answers on the enclosedform...a pretest on such a basis as I suggest mighthave suggested a form that would, I think, have beenmore meaningful."

Generally then, reaction to the study was highlypositive; feeling about the questionnaire was moremixed. The length of the questionnaire was a matterof some concern to its designers. Since the returnsapproached 80 percent, length must not have been agreat deterrent. One comment touched upon a weak-ness in procedure--the absence of a pilot study. Forthe record, it should be noted that many people re-sponded to preliminary sets of items. Some hadrecently completed a.doctoral program; some wereengaged in such a program at the, time. Because thetotal population was so diverse, it was assumed thateach item would not be equally appropriate for allrespondents.

Several respondents were sufficiently interestedin the project to comment that: it would: be valuableonly to the extent that steps wolild.be taken to im-plement program changes which seem desirable inthe light of this feedback from graduates. Theirs.was a concern:which was share:, by those who orig-inally conceived the study.

77

00086

78

Others observed: "A similar study of thosedoctoral candidates who are unable to complete re-quirements should be even more helpful in assessingthe problems involved...."; wish the committeehad seen fit to carry the study a step further andmake the inquiry into: 'Why doctoral candidates(those who have passed qualifying and prelim exami-nations) fail to complete the degree requirements andfinish writing their dissertations.' " This was aserious omission, and one which demanded attentionin the early stages of planning. Since the primaryobjective of this inquiry was to determine conditionsunder which the doctoral study was accomplished,rather than to study differences between successfuland unsuccessful candidates, it was believed that theobjective could best be achieved by canvassing suc-cessful candidates. Moreover, it was assumed thatsuccessful candidates encountered the same condi-tions and situations as did the unsuccessful ones,the primary difference lying in the fact that in theone instance the conditions were dealt with success-fully. It was undoubtedly easier, also, to contactthe candidates who had so recently received thedegree.

It is quite likely that a study of unsuccessfulcandidates would reveal factors not brought to lightin this study. A desirable sequel to this studyactually would be an investigation of these individ-uals, and such will be formally recommended.

A number of difficulties, some of which weremade, apparent by answers to formal questionnaireitems and others of which came to light in the cornments, focused upon personal relationships. Thesewere described sometimes as student-faculty differ-ences and other times as faculty-faculty differenceswhich had consequences for students. For example,some of the graduates commented as follows: "I donot regret attending which I feel to bean outstanding institution. Unfortunately, at the timeof my attendance, personality conflicts among ad-ministrators...candidates found themselves in themidst of the conflict. This...did not enable me tomake lasting contacts among the professors oncampus. I miss these sorely and feel that an im-portant part of my graduate program was lost as aconsequence of these unfortunate circumstances.... ";"Conflicts withba the faculty regarding the purposesof the Ed.D. as compared to the Ph.D. were per-sonalized in many doctoral programs, to the pointthat some students were victims of these conflicts.Not all cases were fatal but they caused manyanxieties. Coupled with insufficient counselingtime, the tribulations did cause some good studentsto say, 'What's the use?'...."; "I have known severalpromising young men who would hove gone ahead toearn the doctorate and been of real service had theyreceive& a' bare 'minimum of inspired teachers andchallenging course programs. The amount of dupli-cation in course material, 'stupid' educational me-'chanics such as committees, 'buzz sessions,' and thelike made these serious students ashamed to be inthe field.' '; "Concerning professor-student relation-

ships, the large, urban university seems eager toenroll doctoral candidates bat unable to provide theclose professional relationship such study needs.There are too many candidates flr the hours avail-able to professors. On several ol:casions I was heldup in my research for weeks waiting for a half-hourappointment required to get approval to go ahead.";"I was a candidate for the Ph.D. degree but in Au-gust of 1954 the graduate committee declared anydissertation which was primarily a contribution toeducation should receive the D.Ed. From 1954 to1957 I revised, added, subtracted, etc. to meet thefundamental knowledge requirements, but by 1957 Igave up and accepted the D.Ed. with the understand-ing that the Ph.D. and D.Ed. were equal but differ-ent...."; "The most frustration I had dui-Ing mydoctorate study came after I handed in my disserta-tion--to get the committee to read it and to get itback for revision on their suggestions (this tookabout 8 months)...."; "The period of study was pro-longed by conflict with major adviser over organiza-tion and development of thesis problem. Finishingthe thesis was possible because of support of otherprofessors in major departments and the willingnessof department heads to arrange appointment of a newadvisory committee...."; "Personal bickering andjealousy among departments is a terrific hindranceto the obtaining of a doctor's degree."

Naturally, these comments cannot be taken as across section of feeling on the part of the respond-ents. However, conditions were mentioned whichcontributed to such matters as length of a programavid anxiety of candidates. It would be interesting toharp how many potential doctorates were lost be-cause of conditions such as those mentioned above.The fact that these comments may not objectivelydescribe conditions which existed is almost irrele-vant. A candidate is more likely to drop out of aprogram because of his perception of conditions, andhis feelings about the perceived conditions, than be-cause of conditions in reality. Of course, perceivedand real conditions are not necessarily independent.

Other factors of a personal nature, most ofwhich were related to finance, often discouraged thecandidates. Some of the graduates commented:"Had I been able to get family housing in 1947-48, 1could have accepted an assistantship and completedthe work in residence in less than a third of thetime eventually required. Finmcing, housing, and asense of belonging are all crying needs that I lookback upon during my graduate study...."; "I returnedto my position at College after complet-ing my residency and passing my examinations. Ifound it extremely difficult to find blocks of time toconcentrate on my dissertation after my return.... ";"Qualitatively, my class work and study duringperiods when I was teaching full tame fell far shortof the class work and study I completed during periodsof complete devotion to these things. Although thiswas not always reflected in marks attained, it wasmost certainly reflected in the sort of learnings Iattained from class work as compared to the tangiblelearnings accumulated during research and thesis

writing...."; "All through my graduate work I wasa full-time employee of the universities, taking amaximum of 6 hours credit per semester and 3 hoursduring the summer session. Time taken for coursework was worked off in overtime...I am convincedthat the best way to acquire a Ph.D. is to go to schoolfull time while your rich parents support you....";"The jobs (outside the university taken to financethe program) were usually of interest, although onoccasion tedious and routine enough to cause mesome loss of interest in my stidues later in the dayor evening, fatigue being the stimulus to want to'escape' work and study.... This study might helpstudents a lot if it shows the right administratorsand agencies how to provide more encouragement andfinancial assistance to students...."; "What appearsto be needed is a re-evaluation of the cost of sup-porting a family and offering to doctoral candidateswith families a chance to earn sufficient money as ateaching assistant at the school where he is pursuinghis studies. Thus, he does not have to seek otherjobs, and the time normally spent in travel to otherjobs can be utilized for study and research at theuniversity."

Two other graduates commented as follows:"Obviously, the process of cutting corners suffi-ciently to complete a doctoral program without finan-cial assistance from the university results in certainstress and strain. I was in the unique position ofspecializing in a field where there was no need forinstructional help so that it was more appropriate tofind full-time work which would complement my pro-gram than to try to make my way through on thebasis of menial half-time jobs.... '; "The loss ofG.I. benefits in the spring of 1951 necessitated myseeking full-time employment in September 1951. Iwas able, however, to complete course work, passboth foreign language exams, the preliminary exam,and establish residency for the degree by Septemberof 1951, but was unable to complete my dissertation.Following the acceptance of full-time employment, anexceptionally heavy teaching load for a period of 4years prevented any appreciable progress on thedissertation except for one summer spent in resi-dence at my own expense."

All of these comments seem to point to thedifficulties involved when employment must be ac-cepted for financial reasons. In every case the pro-gram was considerably lengthened--by a period ofseveral years. On the basis of data accumulated on"length of the program," it appears that the individ-uals who wrote these comments may be speaking forthe majority of the sample.

Another financial aspect of doctoral study ineducation was expressed by the following comments:"I hope your report points up this type of situation:(1) Teaching 6th grade in an elementary school for$5400 per year; (2) teaching in' a university, super-vising student teachers and teaching graduate coursesfor $5400 per year After two years experience inmy college position, I could still be making more

79

money as a 6th-grade teacher...."; "Plan to entercollege teaching summer 1959 and will make muchless money than I have as a high school teacher. Thissituation is discouraging career teachers from ob-taining advanced degrees."

Other comments relative to entering collegeteaching were made as follows: "I have 22 yearssecondary school experience, and even with an Ed.D.degree find it difficult to enter the college field as ateacher. Why do teacher-training institutions preferprevious college teaching ex-mience in applicants?Experience in the field little attraction withmuch to offer...."; "If you are seeking a position ina college or university, a doctorate seems to beessential to the hiring institution. Some school dis-tricts attach some prestige volue to the degree.Seemingly in most of it is not too sig-nificant a factor as a requirement for public schooladministration. I have heard the comment a numberof times that 'he spent all of his time earning adoctorate and didn't have any left to learn his job.'At times, I have felt that there is some truth in thisopinion. Particularly in the case of college instruc-tors of school administration and finance who havenever had any practical contact with the field theyteach. Sort of a 'blind leading the blind' classsituation. Why not develop a field experience pro-gram for college professors--many of them wouldprofit from the experienceparticularly the youngmen in smaller state and private colleges."

Several commentators gave relatively conciseover-all reactions to their doctoral study. Some ofthese are worthy of mention. One individual remarkedon the fact that he found the program pleasant andthen went on to say: "Several friends have rebelledat some of the requirements such as language, pre-liminary and general exams. This rebellion causeddifficulty in disciplining themselves to put forth thenecessary effort. Other friends have started the doc-torate because of pressure from administration.These friends had had difficulty making progressbecause they have not convinced themselves that theywant to get a doctorate badly enough to put forth thenecessary effort, give up the pleasures of life, andsuffer through the unavoidable frustrations." Otherindividuals commented similarly: "In the area offinances, housing, etc., there are certain cost in-volved in attaining any objective. I do not feel astudent should expect things 'given' just because heis a student. I am proud of the fact I worked my waythrough from beginning to end of mycollege train "I wish to say that despite theoccurrence of any 'critical' periods as defined inthis inquiry, my experiences during the postgraduateprogram were wholesome and even enjoyable attimes. I do not regret any of the sacrifices whichhad to be made to achieve the objective...."; "Theeducation I received in the doctoral undertaking wasworthwhile in every way; however, the sacrifice andtime involved have been most detrimental to mephysically (only momentarily, I hope). Receiving thedoctorate has hurt my future at current employment,

0009c

80

if you can imagine such a thing!.... "; "Hard to sayif financial aspect ever always managedbut at the subsistence level and much additional out-side work--I doubt if I could stand the rigorsnow....','; "I still feel as if I hadn't quite come infrom a 'hail storm' ...." ; "For my own amusement...I figured out at one time that I would "nave to teachuntil age 90 to recover what I had actually paid outon the doctoral program, based on the additionalsalary I get because of my doctor's degree ";"Would I do it again? No--am I glad I did it ? --Yes...."; "There are two prime elements needed forpeople to complete higher graduate work 1. money;2. fortitude. The first might be made available tomany more--the second is in the hands of God."

It is hoped that these comments have conveyedsome of the feelings and opinions of the graduatesabout their doctoral programs. While all of the dataindicate that the respondents hav:i a highly favorabledisposition toward their study, the inscitutions, thestaff, and their degree, there can be no doubt butthat these feelings are mixed with memories of hard-ship, anxiety, and conflict. To what should thesemore negative reactions be attributed? Many ofthese reactions, undoubtedly, are due in part to per-sonal characteristics of the individuals themselves;but the institutions, their administrators, and staffmust also accept some responsibility.

TABLE 149.--GRADUATES WISHING TO BE INFORMED OF THECOMPLETED STUDY


Wish to be informed 2351 92.5%Do not wish to be informed 123 4.8No response 68 2.7

Total 2542 100.0%

n (1111S (-1

Chapter X

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

As one phase of a larger inquiry aimed ulti-mately at increasing the quantity and quality ofdoctoral degree holders in the field of professionaleducation, this study undertook to survey conditionsaffecting pursuit of the doctoral degree in education.Questionnaires were sent to all available individualswho received the Ed.D. or Ph.D. in education betweenSeptember 1956 and September 1958. Responseswere received from 78.5 percent of the personspolled. The respondents represented 91 institutionswhich award the doctorate in education.

No 'hypotheses were drawn prior to the study;rather, the purpose was the development of hypoth-eses. Statistical procedures were used sparinglywith the data and, when used, consisted of chi-square analysis and rank correlation. All data werecoded for IBM tabulation. The tabulations made were(a) across all items (the mass data), (b) acrossmajor fields, (c) across degrees, and (d) acrossinstitutions. 10'

Summary treatment of this data has led to in-terpretations which are greatly condensed, specula-tive in nature, and, by design, suggestive rather thandefinitive.

MAJOR FINDINGS. AND IMPLICATIONS

1. The production of Ed.D.'s was almost doublethat of Ph.D.'s. Some basic differences were ap-parent in the two populations of graduates. Thedifferences seemed primarily to distinguish the"Practitioner" from the teacher and researeher.There were many exceptions to frequently mentioneddifferences' between the degrees, many of which in-dicated that factors other than academic and voca-tional goals of students affect the choice of degree.One such factor seemed to be ,inatitutiOnal policy;for example, a given institution might offer only thePh.D., but a significant nuMber of its degree can-didates would have praCtitioriere' goals.

,2. The areas of specialization in, which doctoralstudents majored were numerous, and varied in na-ture; they ranged frOm administration to the teachingof anthropology. The responses gave the distinctimpression that graduates from the various areas ofspecialization Were not, equally interested in profes-sionai edUCation. ,Some, manifested an;intense dedi-ca0On to .edUCatiOn; othera appeared' to have beenenrolled: in k Or,Ooyn which ,c4riced .be, offeredby .;a College 'or, departinent OF edtiCitlon:;andcounseling InajOrli were typical of

latter group and Often cOmMented abOut theirlack of interest by pointing to the accident Of`thereceipt of ,their, degree,in an education department.Graduates,; certain fields ,sometimes ,did not

,

classify themselves in the same major categoriesas did the institutions which granted the degrees.

3. There were approximately four men to eachwoman in the sample. Women were conspicuous bytheir absence in certain major fields, for example,administration. In other fields, women dominatedthe list of graduates. In view of the number ofwomen who teach in American schools, one mightexpect that the proportion completing doctoral studieswould or could be greater than it is.

4. The sample can be characterized sociologi-cally as strongly mobile in an upward direction. Thisis a professional group, but only 29 percent of theirfathers were engaged in professional, semiprofes-sional, or managerial activities. Almost all havereceived more education than their fathers did. Manyof these graduates were reared in large cities;many, around "ew York City. The number whoseearly lives we. _ spent in small villages and ruralareas considerably exceeds that which would be ex-pected in terms of the distribution of populationthroughout this country. This was not equally truefor all regions, however. The "great plains" statescontributed considerably more graduates than ex-pected; the southern states, considerably fewer thanexpected. Approximately 80.3 percent of the samplewere married and 83.6 percent of those who weremarried had children. Most spouses had receivedat least a bachelor's degree.

5. Most graduates were 38 or 39 years of age,or older, when they received their degrees. Therange in year of birth was from 1886 to 1933- -nearly 50 years. Most had accumulated more thanten years of professional experience prior to re-ceipt of the doctoral degree. Many had also com-pleted two or three years of military service. Thesefacts have numerous implications. Only a few pro-fessional years remain for many of theae graduates.Although experience is essential for study in educa-tion, it does not appear that this will be equally true,or that the amount of experience will be equallygreat, in all specialties within the field.

6. The individuals in this sample first consid-ered entering the doctoral program rather late intheir vocational-educational careers, most often dur-ing or after the master's program. The choice ofmajor, fields was alsO made late in. their careers,although these, decisions were distributed ratherevenly throughout the predoctoral period,

7. Professional 'colleagues and former profes-sors, especially the, latter, were the most influentialpersons in the decision to enter the doctoral pro-gram. These graduates most frequently attributed

81e, +_nntieleMIMMW1m1=Iiiidil

82

their motivation to a desire for new knowledge andthe desire to remain well qualified in a given field.Motivaton was seldom attributed to a single desire.

8. The "GI Bill" was the most essential finan-cial resource used by the graduates; 41.1 percent ofthe respondents included it in the list of resourcesused, and an additional 20.1 percent specified it asthe most significant single factor in their financialarrangements. Savings, scholarships, and fellow-ships were also cited as important but were notusually seen as most significant. Also, a sizablegroup suggested that concurrent full-time work wasthe enabling factor. The implications here are im-portant. First, the "GI Bill" is disappearing as afinancial source. Concurrent work is on the rise,but it would be questionable to suggest that thesolution to doctoral candidates' financial problemsis to encourage them to work full time. Evidencefrom this study indicates that these part-time stu-dents took much longer to complete the program,had more critical periods, suffered more distrac-tions, were less satisfied with the program, andbelieved they missed a valuable part of an institu-tion's offerings, namely, student-student and student -faculty interaction.

9. Earlier degrees were obtained from a var-iety of institutions. Private institutions grantedbachelor's degrees to only 22.2 percent of the samplebut graated master's degrees to 39.4 percent of therespondents. State institutions awarded approxi-mately one-half of both the bachelor's and master'sdegrees. As could be expected, there was a definitemovement toward more complex institutions asregistrants progressed from one degree to another.Only 32.9 percent of the sample majored in educa-tion as undergraduates. This seems to suggest thatrecruiting practices should not be restricted toschools and colleges of education; the social sciencesand humanities are fruitful fields as well.

10. Fewer than one -half were employed asteachers in their last position prior to receipt of thedegree. In fact, for many, there was a definite move-ment from teaching to nonteaching positions through-out their vocational career. It appears that teachersneeded to experience some success to b_ e willing toattempt the prograin and that success as `al class-room teacher was frequently rewarded by promotionto a nonteaching position. Those Who were teachingjust prior to receipt of the degree were employedboth by.c011eges (46.8 percent) and l'spublic schoo(39.4 percent). SeVeral pUblic school teichers hadtaken College positions after completing course workbut while still working on their diaSertations. .Thisaccounts for many of the long delayii In CoMPletingthe degree; aticl-Passibly explains some of; the failure's'to complete the degree, although this study containsno evidence to support this latter: assumption. It isapparent, hoWever, that'll-Lilly candidates were em-ployed at the 'College level at the beginning of degreework: 'Thise'mi4 have been the pergonnWhose chiefmotive for Study Was'the "desire to remain well

qualified" and to "advance in rank." These datasupport the conclusion that the original recruitmentof candidates was not confined principally to collegestaff but, rather, that much of it was directed towarda variety of public school personnel. This was infact an excellent source of candidates. For profes-sional education as a whole, there remains the con-sideration as to whether increased recruiting fromthe public schools would be advantageous.

11. The two most significant factors in the choiceof a doctoral institution were: (a) reputation of in-dividual staff members and (b) proximity of theuniversity. It is entirely possible that these twofactors are correlated to some degree, in the sensethat the Midwesterner looks to the "Big Ten" andthe Easterner to the "Ivy League." However, italso appears that "proximity" has an economic fac-tor underlying it. It was found that proximity corre-lated negatively with availability of assistantships,and that, within the group of institutions which seemto be high in prestige, veryfew respondents specifiedproximity as a basis for institutional choice.

12. Attitudes toward nearly all aspects of thedoctoral program were highly positive, suggestingsomething of a halo effect. However, looking at thenegative sides of the continua only, some variationwas apparent, especially when the Ed.D.'s andPh.D.'s, major fields, or institutions were compared.Institutional comparisons were especially interest-ing, in that marked differences were apparent be-tween institutions on nearly every attitude item.Unfortunately, these data cannot be presented, but itis hoped that each institution will examine its owndata and evaluate them in light of the total findings.

13. The data show that 35.4 percent of the re-spondents found it necessary to discontinue tempo-rarily the program at some point. An additional30.5 percent considered this step. The causes mostoften cited were work pressures and financial prob-lems, two closely related factors. The work to whichthese individuals referred was that which was neces-sary CO alleviate financial problems. The same kindof problems perplexed the respondents (58.8 percentof them) who indicated the existence of "persistentand recurring factors which prevented wholeheartedattention to doctoral study." While it undoubtedlycomes as no great surprise that individuals engagedin graduate study have financial problems, thesedata offer confirmation as to the magnitude of thisproblem.

14. The most common single source of incomeduring residency was savings, but it was seldomsufficient. In fad, during residency, most individualsmade use of three sources of income to finance thefamily and the doctoral study. Assistantships, the"GI Bill," and work outside the university were theother major sources of income.

15. The median length of the total program wasfive years (60 months), but the modal length was

00091

99 or more months. The implications of this areobvious. The time must be shortened, but this is notsimply a matter of legislating new policies whichspecify shorter time limits. This study indicatesthat numerous institutional and personal variablesoperate to extend the length of doctoral programs.

16. Approximately one-half of the graduateswere teaching during the academic year 1958-59.The remainder were engaged in administration, per-sonnel work, or instructional service. Public schoolsand colleges employed 84.1 percent of the respond-ents. Various service organizations employed mostof the remainder. Approximately one-fourth of thegraduates were not inveAved in teacher educationduring this period. Institutions seemed to have dif-ferent ideas as to the purpose of their programsand, hence, a variety of conceptions as to the typeof work graduates should enter. It should also benoted that respondents had different ideas as to whatconstitutes involvement in teacher education. Ap-parently, some hold that they must be teaching in adepartment of education; others feel that supervisionor administration in the public schools involves themin teacher education.

The 16 findings summarized above do not repre-sent all possible conclusions to be drawn from theresponses. However, these findings are those whichappear to be significant and closely tied to the data.

It is the purpose of this study to identify certain"critical" factors which underlie conditions afiect-ing pursuit of the doctoral degree in education, draseine conclusions relative to these factors, and makessome recommendations for further study. Thc#tical factors which have been selected can beplaced in two categories -- namely, (a) those whichcan be studied by means of further treatment ofdata already gathered and (b) those which requireadditional data or the integration of these data withcertain other data. Those which can be studied byfurther treatment of these data seem to fall undersix headings:

1. Sociological facts relative to the individualin the, sample

2. The age of the graduates3. The length of the doctoral program4. Financial factors5. The occupational sources of students and the

kinds of positions taken after receipt of thedoctorate

6. Institutional control of factors affecting pur-suit of the degree.

Consider first some sociological facts. A largeportion of the sample came from community back-grounds of either (a) rural areas and small, villagesor (b) large, cities. This fact becomes critical whenit is seen that these two groups were vastly differentin many respects. They had different interests, theyentered different major fields, and they took differentkinds of; positions after completing the program. The

83

rural-village graduates became elementary educa-tion majors, curriculum specialists, and administra-tors, while those who originated in the large citybecame clinical psychologists, educational psychol-ogists, and subject area specialists. The groupstook different degrees; the rural-village group pre-ferred the Ed.D., and the large city group, the Ph.D.It can be hypothesized that similar differences wouldappear on other variables. It is suggested, there-fore, that these two groups be separated from thetotal sample and that the data be summarized withrespect to these two subgroups. The findings of sucha summary may prove important for recruitingpractices in various institutions. This would pro-vide a basis for institutions in putting geographicallocation, student background, and similar factorsinto perspective as a partial guide for recruitingand program formulation. Similar comparisons ofoccupational backgrounds (e.g., professional, agri-cultural, skilled labor, etc.) might also bring in-teresting differences to light.

More facts need to be uncovered relative to theage variable. No doubt useful information wouldbe found in a summary of the responses by theyoungest and oldest one-fourth of this population.It may be found that older persons tend to go intocertain areas of specialization, that they tend to re-main in their old positions, that they come from dif-ferent backgrounds, and that they are motivated bydifferent values and goals. It has been noted hereinthat members of the younger group spend more timein residence, make more use of assistantships (orare more often granted assistantships), prefer cer-tain institutions (or are accepted more often bycertain institutions), and more often select the Ph.D.degree. We do not know whether the two age groupsmake distinctive contributions. It is possible thatcontributions are sufficiently unique and desirableto warrant renewed emphasis on recruitment atboth age levels.

The time required to progress through requiredcourses to the completed dissertation was extremelygreat. A wide variety of factors apparently influ-enced this variable. It is noted, however, that anumber of these factors are related to institutionalpolicies. When institutions were ranked on the basisof median length of program, there was a differenceof five years between the highest and lowest institu-tion. One' way to study this phenomenon would be toseek similarities and differences within and betweenthe institutions at the two extremes. Intensive studyof program requirements in these institutions wouldbe very helpful to any who wishes to challenge thepopition that program time cannot be reduced.Another approach would be to group respondents bylength of program and then compare the responsesof the longest one-fourth with those of the shortestone-fourth. It is quite possible that the individualsin these two, groups had quite different objectives,that their activities in the period between completionof course work and completion of the dissertationwere' quite different, and that they differed as to theavailability of financial resources.

84

The critical nature of financial factors has beenemphasized throtghout this report. Two approachesto the problem are suggested here. The first andmost obvious is to increase the financial support tostudents. A second, and perhaps equally difficultapproach, would be to select students either who arenot likely to have financial difficulties or who areable to tolerate financial hardships. There is evi-dence in this study which indicates that financialdifficulties are, to a large degree, a matter of per-ception. That is, when two students live undersimilar financial conditions, one may perceive theconditions as those of extreme deprivation while theother does not. It is possible that additional infor-mation concerning the perception of financial ob-stacles would be made available if one could con-trast responses of those who did and those who didnot attribute critical and near-critical periods tofinancial difficulties.

The principal occupational sources of the doc-toral candidates were the public schools, colleges,and, to a limited extent, certain service organiza-tions. This is not to say, however, that the activitiesof all candidates were alike in each of these settings.If the individual entered the program from a college,he was probably a teacher. If he entered the pro-gram froM the public school, he was most likely anadministrator, a curriculum specialist, a guidancecounselor, or some other kind of specialist. Collegeteaching and school specialties are the evidences ofsuccess previously mentioned as "personal require-ments" which seem to accompany motivation tostudy for the doctorate. To enhance our understand-ing of he manner in which these observations bearupon recruiting, it would be useful to divide thepopulation on the basis of position held just prior toreceipt of the degree. Differences between collegeteachers, elementary and secondary school teachers,and other school specialists could then more readilybe observed.

The principal institutional sources of studentsalso continue to be ..a source of interest. Only 11.1perCent of this group received the baccalaureate de-gree from a teachers College. Only 20 percent re-ceived master's degrees outside the 91 institutionson which this study is based. Students from someinstitutions must be More h,j,hly motivated towardcontinued graduate study than are those from otherinstitutions. No attempt has been made herein todetermine what these. motivations have been andhow they influenced students.

'Recruiting and placeinent may also be linked inthat students from certain occupational and academicsources are' more or less likely to accept positionswhich' differ as to kind and/or institutional setting.It may be hypothesized that these patterns are notsusceptible 'to institutional redirecti or that thepatterns are'so enineshed in institutional policy thatthey defy differentiation.'

Perhaps the most important observation whichcomes from this study is to be deduced from the

institutional comparisons which have been made.Substantial differences were observed whenever in-stitutions were ranked. In statistical terminology,variance between institutions far exceeded variancewithin institutions. Institutions differed markedly onfactors such as age of students, length of program,proportion of students having critical periods, num-ber of assistantships or fellowships available, a-mount of student-student or student-faculty inter-action, and positive quality of attitudes. The impli-cation of all this is control, that is, the amount ofcontrol which the institution wields over factorsaffecting the pursuit of the degree. In other words,institutions cannot legitimately claim that a specifiedcondition is the result of the times or factors overwhich there is no control, because in other institu-',Ions these factors are being controlled. Unfor-tunately, these data reveal only the fact of control;they do not indicate how institutions control. Norcan confidences be broken to identify where controlsexist on certain variables. However, if administra-tors believe it profitable, they might compare localsummaries, using for resource persons those in thegroup who appear to have best resolved a singleissue, for example, length of program. At this time,this kind of approach seems most appropriate.

The elements listed above seem to be the mostcritical and most significant of those which affectpursuit of the doctoral degree in education as re-vealed by the data collected herein. However, thereare three other areas which seem profitable forinvestigation. Each of these three fell outside theimmediate scope of this portion of the total project.

The first has to do with trends. This surveymay help to identify conditions as they existed in thefield of education within a specified two-year period,but the direction of movement of these conditions iscompletely unknown. Did the individuals who re-ceived their degrees from 1954-56, for example,have more or fewer critical periods? Did they re-quire a greater or lesser length of time to completetheir programs? These and many other similarquestions cannot be answered now. If knowledge oftrends is important, it might be well to think interms of continuing studies such as this, on asmaller scale. This could be done in much thesame manner as that in which the National Academy ofSciences collects its data on persons who completedthe doctoral degree in all fields, a method requiringdoctoral candidates to fill out questionnaires as theyfinish their programs. The questionnaire might con-sist of items relative to the six critical factorsidentified in this study.

The semad area which needs investigation hasto do with the causes which underlie the failure of alarge group of candidates to complete programsafter having successfully dealt with many of thehurdles. Why do individuals who have completed allcourse work, qualifying examinations, and languagesnever cOmplete the final step--the dissertation?Are the causes a function of conditions or of the

individual? Could employing institutions reduce thisproblem by allowing blocks of time to work on thedissertation, or should the parent institution passregulations which would require completion of thedissertation in residence? These questions, ofcourse, have a bearing upon successful, as well asupon unsuccessful, candidates.

And finally, it would be remiss not to comparethe perceptions of graduates, as reported herein,with the perceptions of institutional officials, as re-

85

ported-in the complementary study conducted at theUniversity of Denver. It is anticipated that the tworeports will show varying degrees of agreement anddifference. Certainly it would be usefulfor an insti-tution to know whether the aims and purposes ofpolicies and programs are being realized in the atti-tudes and perceptions of graduates. As mentionedearlier, this particular task has been considered,and it may become the final report, or third volume,of the total study.

APPENDIXES

89

APPENDIX A

ADDITIONAL DATA CONCERNING RESPONDENTS

;FA

BL

E A

.--N

UM

BE

R O

F C

HIL

DR

EN

OF

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TS,

BY

MA

JOR

FIE

LD

S

Maj

orfie

ldN

umbe

r of

chi

ldre

nO

neT

wo

Thr

eeF

our

or m

ore

Sin

gle

No

resp

onse

Num

ber

in fi

eld

12

34

56

78

:Spe

cial

edu

catio

n8.

0%26

.0%

10.0

%8.

0%20

.0%

28.0

%50

-Adm

inis

trat

ion

-Adm

inis

trat

ion

16.7

17.3

33.5

22.6

17.1

12.2

11.7

7.0

6.8

6.1

14.2

34.8

621

115

Phi

sica

l edu

catio

n15

.919

.712

.18.

47.

536

.410

7P

ract

ical

art

s15

.629

.710

.98.

67.

128

.112

8S

ocia

l fou

ndat

ions

...12

.725

.417

.56.

37.

930

.263

Sub

jeci

r te

as .

. . .

...18

.425

.610

.410

.38.

526

.816

4M

alke

nmtic

s or

sci

alee

.9.

136

.310

.49.

110

.424

.777

Edu

catio

nal p

sych

olog

y.22

.830

.813

.58.

710

.723

.514

9

Sec

onda

ry e

duca

tion

20.2

24.2

20.2

9.0

8.1

18.3

99E

lem

entc

ry e

duca

tion

.14

.823

.816

.93.

810

.730

.013

0H

ighe

r ed

ucat

ion.

15.5

22.5

11.4

12.6

5.6

32.4

71

Gui

danc

e....

.....

13.3

28.9

13.3

9.8

7.5

27.2

173

Clin

iPal

psy

chol

ogy

24.5

26.5

9.2

1.0

11.2

27.6

98S

tude

nt p

erso

nnel

, adm

inis

trat

ion

18 :2

_27.3

11.4

2.3

6.8

34.0

44

TA

BL

E B

.-SP

OU

SES'

ED

UC

AT

ION

, BY

IV

IA,T

OR

FIE

LD

S

Maj

or f

ield

Ele

men

tary

Hig

h sc

hool

Col

lege

Deg

ree

No

resp

onse

orsp

ouse

Num

ber

infi

eld

Unf

inis

hed

Gra

duat

e2

yrs.

Mor

e th

anor

less

2 yr

s.

B.A

.,B

.S.,

etc.

M.A

.,M

.S.,

etc.

Ed.

D.

or Ph.D

.

3.4

56

78

910

11

Spec

ial e

duca

tion.

... ..

.12

.0%

2.0%

8.0%

14.0

%28

.0%

16.0

%2.

0%18

.06

50A

dmin

istr

atio

n8.

95.

014

.56.

941

.413

.2.6

9.3

621

Cur

ricu

lum

..3.

55.

28.

75.

230

.410

.43.

533

.011

5

Phys

ical

edu

catio

n. .

. . .

. . .

6.5

4.7

11.2

3.7

31.8

12.1

.929

.010

7Pr

actic

al a

rts

. . .

......

. . .

6.3

9.4

8.6

3.9

29.7

15.6

1.6

25.0

128

Soci

al f

ound

atio

ns ..

... .

. . .

3.2

1.A

9.5

3.2

36.5

19.0

1.6

25.4

63

Subj

ect a

reas

.7.

93.

78.

56.

730

.517

.11.

224

.416

4M

athe

mat

ics

or s

cien

ce6.

56.

59.

15.

236

.413

.02.

620

.877

''Edu

catio

nal p

sych

olog

y6.

01.

39.

410

.131

.518

.81.

320

.814

9

Seco

ndar

y ed

ucat

ion

14.I

6.1

li.I

11.1

25.3

12.1

3.0

17.2

99E

lem

enta

ry e

duca

tion

3.8

3.8

10.8

7.7

30.0

16.2

2.3

24.6

130

Hig

her

educ

atio

n5.

65.

68.

55.

629

.612

.71.

429

.671

Gui

danc

e .

.7.

55.

213

.94.

026

.618

.53.

520

.817

3C

linic

alps

y;ho

l-og

y...

....

6.1

7.1

10.2

1.0

25.5

23.5

9.2

17.3

98SN

dent

per

sonn

el a

dmin

istr

atio

n2.

32.

34.

511

.429

.520

.52.

327

.344

TABU', C.--ORIGINAL DISTRIBUTION OF TABLE C.-- ORIGINAL DISTRIBUTION OFRESPONDENTS, BY MAJOR FIELDS RESPONDENTS BY MAJOR FIELDS (Continued)

Field Number

Administration, college or higher educationAdministration, elementaryAdministration, general, school or educational. ..Administration, health, physical education, or

recreationAdministration, junior collegeAdministration, religious educationAdministration, secondaryAdministration, special educationAdministration, student personnelAdministration and educational serviceAdministration and supervisionAdult educationAgricultural educationAnthropology, teaching ofArt educationAudio-visual educationBusiness educationCampingChild development, child psychology and child

welfareClinical psychologyConservationCoUnselinCounseling and guidanceCounseling psyChologyCounseling andeducational psychologyCollege teaching, generalCurriculum, elementary.CurricOlum, generalCurriculum and supervisionCUrricUlurn and teachingDramatic"arts educationEducation, generalEducational psychologyEducational psyChology and guidanceEducational psychology and research or measurementEducation for marriage and family lifeElementary education, elementary teaching or

instruction .. . . 000000 o

EleMentary"education-supervisiOnEngineering edUCOticin .Engliih edUcetiOn,English and teaching of English .Fine'arti educationForeign:language education., . . . . .,-'Guidance; .general ......Guidance .and special education ......Health'iducation4ealth, physical education,

recreation, safety .

higher. ethication , general . ... . ... . .. .History Of education.. .. . .History and Philosophy:of.educationHome' economics educationHuman relations educationH. Min develoPtnentInduStiial education .. .. . . .Junior college : ............ . . .LangUage.or communication. artsMathematics or teaching of mathematics . ......

3023

581

1431

17

6144

5522082

13

13

462

15

62,24 .'

5232 '2

93

Music and music education 1 63Personnel psychology 4Philosophy of education, philosophy and theory of

education 29Physical education 70Psychology 53Reading (including psychology of 10Religious education . 17Safety education 3School psychology 3Science education 51Secondary education 99Secondary and higher education 5Social studies, teaching of 34Special education 27Speech, teaching of (also speech education) 8Speech pathology 4Statistics and measurement, or evaluation .. , . .. 19Supervision '. ..,,.. ...... . 0 0 0 9Teacher education (or training) 48Vocational education . 11

Vocational television 1

Sociology or social work 8Mental health 4Nursing 'education ,. 4Nutrition 2

Field Number

1

7 TABLE D.- -MOST. RECENT PREDOCTORAL41 POSITION, BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP24.

435

7414926.

2010

130

51

20102

121

4

-4:1

la 7.

,

'

37

26'

Occupational group

1

Number Percent

2 3

Professional, semiprofessional, ormanagerial 303 11.9%

Clerical and sales 12 0.5Service 4 0.2Agriculture . .... . . .. .... .... 2 0.1Skilled labor .. .. .. ... .. 1 0.0Semiskilled or unskilled 3 0.1Education, teacher . ... . . . . .. .. 1149 45.2Education, nonteacher .... . . . . 1017 40.0Other . .. .. .. . ....... . 1 0.0No response or no job 50 2.0

Total.... .. . .... . .. 2542 100.0%

TABLE E.--MOST RECENT PREDOCTORAL POST-,TIONI BY TYPE OF EMPLOYING ORGANIZATION

Organization

1

Elementary or high schoolCollege or universityService organizationBusinees or industryNo response or no jobError (invalid code, Category 7)

...........00099

Number Percent

2 3

980 38.6%1164 45.8.278 10.9

66 2.653 2.1

1 0.02542 100.0%

TABLE F.--MOST RECENT PREDOCTORALPOSITION, BY NUMBER OF YEARS HELD

Years held Number Percent

1 2 3

One 526 20.7%Two. 464 18.3Three 292 11.5Four 215 8.5Five 188 7.4Six 131 5.2Seven 110 4.3Eigh 93 3.7Nine or more 462 18.2No response or no job 61 2.2

Total 2542 100.0%

TABLE G.--MOST RECENT PREDOCTORALPOSITION, BY DEGREE OF INFLUENCE

ON DOCTORAL STUDY

Degree of influence Number Percent

1 2 3

Highly influential, of decisiveimportance. ........ 1056 41.5%

OF considerable influence 515 20.3Moderately influential . 303 11.9Of little influence. .... . 162 6.4Of no influence 255 10.0No response or no job ... . 251 9.9

Total 2542 100.0%

TABLE H.'-- SECOND mon- RECENT PREDOC-TORAL POSITION, BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP

Occupational giouP Niniiber Percent

2-

Professional, semiprofessional, ormanagerial ....

Clerical mnd sales "...Service ... . .AgrkUltUre .Skilled labor....: . .... -Semiskilled orEducation, teacher. .Education, rionteacher.Other'...1:;'...'..No reipcmse or no lob. .... . .

321 12.6%8 1.1

0.2,,1 0.02 0.1

.. 8 0.31099 43.2760 29.9

0 , , , 0..0317 12.4

Total. ............ 2542 100.0%

94

TABLE I.--SECOND MOST RECENTPREDOCTORAL POSITION, BY TYPE OF

EMPLOYING ORGANIZATION

Organization Number Percent

1 2. 3

Elementary or high school 1127 44.3%College or university 718 28.2Service organization 272 10.7Business or Industry. 106 4.2No response or no lob 319 12.6

Total 2542 100.0%

TABLE J.-SECOND MOST RECENTPREDOCTORAL POSITION, BY NUMBER

OF YEARS HELD


1 2 3

One 638 25.1%Two 482 19.0Three 329 12.9Four 231 9.1Five 151 5.9Six 105 4.1Seven 68 2.7Eight 47 1.8Nine or more 159 6.3No response or no lob 332 13.1

Total 2542 100.0%

TABLE K.--SECOND MOST RECENTPREDOCTORAL POSITION, BY DEGREE OF

INFLUENCE. ON DOCTORAL STUDY


1 2 3

Highly, influential, of decisiveimportance 509 20.0%

Of,considerable influence 527 20.7Moderately influential 436 17.2Of little influence 283 11.1Of no influence 31V 12.5No response or no job 467 18.5Error (invalid code, Category 6) 1 0.0

Total 2542 100.0%

00100

TABLE L.--THIRD MOST RECENT PREDOC-TORAL POSITION, BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP

Occupational group Number Percent

1 2 3


Clerical and sales 55 2.2Service 9 0.4Agriculture 1 0.0Skilled labor 8 0.3Semiskilled or unskilled 10 0.4Education, teacher 991 39.0Education, nonteacher 471 18.5Other 0 0.0No response or no job 689 27.1

Total 2542 100.0%

TABLE M.--THIRD MOST RECENTPREDOCTORAL POSITION, BY TYPE OF


Organization Number Percent

1 2 3

Elementary or high schoolCollege or university . .... .....

1015431

39.9%17.0.

Service organization 238 9.4Business or industry... ....... 166 6.5No response or no job 691 27.2Error (invalid code, Category 5) 1 0.0

Total 2542 100.0%

TABLE N.--THIRD MOST RECENTPREDOCTORAL POSITION, BY NUMBER

OF YEARS HELD


1 2 3

610 24.0%Two 1 ...... OO 447 17.6Three .... OOO OOO 262 10.3Four OO OO . .. OOO 11 170 6.7

107 4.2Si x. . . . . . O O O A.. ' . 64 2.5Seierf. OOOOOO O O 62 2.4

OOO O OO OO O 4 22 0.9Nine or more 97 : 3.8No response or no lob. . 701 27.6

Total 2542 100.0%

95

TABLE 0.--THIRD MOST RECENT PRE-DOCTORAL POSITION, BY DEGREE OF

INFLUENCE ON DOCTORAL STUDY


1 2 3

Highly influential, of decisiveimportance 246 9.7%

Of considerable influence 335 13.2Moderately influential 376 14.8Of little influence 325 12.8Of no influence 424 16.7No response or no job 836 32.8

Total 2542 100.0%

TABLE P. FOURTH MOST RECENTPREDOCTORAL POSITION, BY

OCCUPATIONAL, GROUP

Occupational group Number Percent

1 2 3


Clerical and sales 43 1.7Service 9 0.4Agriculture 3 0.1Skilled labor 11 0.4Semiskilled or unskilled 21 0.8Education, teacher 725 28.5Education, nonteacher 245 9.6Other 0 0.0No response or no lob 1261 49.7

Total 2542 100.0%

TABLE Q.--FOURTH MOST RECENTPREDOCTORAL POSITION, BY TYPE OF


OrgCnization Number Percent

1 2 3

,Elementary or high school OOOOOO 737 29.0%College or university 225 8.9

..,Service organization ...... '165 6.5Business or industry ..... 154 6.1NO response or no job ..... 1261 49.6

Total.. . . ...... .. 2542 100.096

00101

96

TABLE R:--FOURTH MOST RECENT PREDOC-TORAL POSITION, BY NUMBER OF YEARS HELD

TABLE S.--FOURTH MOST RECENTPREDOCTORAL POSITION, BY DEGREE OF

INFLUENCE ON DOCTORAL STUDYYears held Number Percent

1 2 3 Degree of influence Number Percent

OneTwoThreeFourFiveSixSeven .. . .........Nine or moreNo response or no job

Total

489286

1185

6939231759

1268

19.2%11.3

47.32

2.71.50.90.72.3

49.9

1 2 3

Highly influential, of decisiveimportance

Of considerable influenceModerately influential .......Of little influenceOf no influenceNo response or no job

Total

105

172210241433

1381

4.1%6.88.39.5

17.054.3

2542 100.0% 2542 100.0%

TABLE T.--TYPE OF "SECOND MOST RECENT" PREDOCTORAL POSITION, BY MAJOR FIELDS

Major field

Professionalor

managerialEducation,

teacherEducation,nonteacher

Allother

No responseor

no job Number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Special education 20.0% 48.0% 16.0% 16.0% 50Administration.... . . 6.8 32.2 50.6 2.1% 8.3 621Curriculum 5.2 51.3 33.9 011, 9.6 115

Physical education. . . . . 15.9 62.6 10.3 2.8 8.4 107Practical arts . 10.9 594 '16.4 1.6 11.7 128Social foundations . . .. . 17.5 46.0 '14.3 1.6 20..6 63

Subject areas .... 7.3 63.4 14.0 1.2 14.1 164Mathematics or science. . 3,9 62.3 15.6 1.3 16.9 77Educational psychology.. . . 14.1 39.6 16.8 5.4 24.1 149

Secondary education. 4.0 55 .6 29.3 11.1 99Elementary education 2.3 47.7 33.8 6:6 15.4 130

Higher education 9.9 40.8 28.2 1.4 19.7 71

Guidance 21.4 , 34.1 33.5 1.8 9.2 173CliniCal psychology . . -49.0 16.3 17.3 2.0 15.4 98Student personnel administration 11.4 38.6 40.9 9.1 44

TABLE U.--TYPE OF ORGANIZATION WHICH EMPLOYED RESPONDENTS IN "SECOND MOST RECENT"PREDOCTORAL POSITIONS. BY MAJOR FIELDS

Major fieldPublicschool College

Serviceorganization

BUsiness orIndustry

Noresponse Number

, 1 2 3 6 7

Special education . ..., 46:0% 20.0% 14.0% 4.0% 16.0%Administration '' 63..3 17.7 6.8 3.7 8.5 621CUrrimilum 54.8' 28.7 3.5 4.3 8.7 115

Physical eduiation. 3565 37.4 15.9 2.8 8.4 17Practical . . . 34.4 38.3 7.8 7.8 11.7 128Sada! foundatians '6.5 22.2 14.3 6.4 20.6 63

SUbject areas, ,

32.9 , 42.7 4.3 14.0 164MitheMatics 2.6 2.6 16.8 77Educational psychology... 130:21 11.4 6.7 24.2 149

Secondary eduCafion: . .. .. . .;.,, .4 ''H1C2 3.0 1.0 11.1 99Elementary education .' . 5942:7," 3.1 1.5 15.4 130Higher,education;.; . 1 49,1 12.7 4.2 19.7 71

Guidance 38.2 32.9 17.3 2.3 9.3 173psYchology ,

SiUdent personnel administration .. ,14.3:,29.5

25.545,.5 15.9

7.1 16.49.1

; 9844

97

TABLE V.--REPUTATION OF DEPARTMENT AS A FACTOR IN THE CHOICE OF DOCTORALINSTITUTIONS, BY MAJOR FIELDS


factorThe most

significant factor No resF.Onse Number

1 2 3 4 5

Special education 4.0% 2.0% 94.0% 50Administration 2.0 2.3 95.7 621Curriculum 3.5 5.2 91.3 115

Physical education 1.9 2.8 95.3 107Practical arts 2.3 2.4 95.3 128Social foundations 3.2 ... 96.8 63

Subject areas 4.9 1.2 93.9 164Mathematics or science 5.2 1.3 93.5 77Educational psychology 2.7 2.0 95.3 149

Secondary education 2.0 1.0 97.0 99Elementary education 1.5 2.3 96.2 130Higher education 1.4 ... 98.6 71

Guidance 5.2 2.9 91.9 173Clinical psychology 3.1 3.1 93.8 98Student personnel administration 6.8 ... 93.2 44

TABLE W.--TYPE OF POSITIONS HELD DURING THEACADEMIC YEAR 1957-58

Type of position Number Percent

1 2 3

Teaching 887 34.9%Administration.. . .... . . ..... 480 18.9Personnel services 149 5.9instructional services .. 187 7.4Other 59 2.3No response 780 30.6

Total 2542 100.0%

TABLE X.--ORGANIZATIONS EMPLOYING PH.D.'S AND ED.D.'SDURING THE ACADEMIC YEAR 1957-58

Type of Position

Ph. D. EdD. Total

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Public school district 107 12.4% 418 24.9% 525 20.7%College or university 331 38.3 645 38.5 976 38.4.Service organization 91 10.5 94 5.6 185 7.3Business or industry 21 2.4 10 0.6 31 1.2Other 16 1.9 21 1.2 37 1.4No response 299 34.6 489 29.2 788 31.0

Total 865 100.0% 16n 100.0% 2542 100.0%

TABLE Y.--INCIDENCE OF INVOLVEMENT IN TEACHER EDUCATIONDURING THE. ACADEMIC YEAR 1957-58

Response Number

2

Percent

3

involVed in teacheir'OducatiOn.'Noninvolved in teacher;`InvOlVedpart time,inteacher4ducationNO i.esponse.'

'Total. I 41- ID 11.:.c

1135 44.6%505 19.9

16 0.6886 34.9

2542

99

APPENDIX B

INSTITUTIONS GRANTING BACHELOR'S AND MASTER'S DEGREES

TO THE RESPONDENTS

60104

TABLE A.--INSTITUTIONS GRANTING BACHELOR'S DEGREES TO THE RESPONDENTS

Institution

AlabamaAlabama A & M CollegeAlabama CollegeAlabama State CollegeAuburn UniversityBirmingham-Southern CollegeFlorence State CollegeHoward CollegeHuntingdon CollegeJacksonville State CollegeJudson CollegeTalladega CollegeTroy State CollegeTuskegee InstituteUniversity of Alabama

ArizonaArizona State College (Flagstaff)Arizona State UniversityUniversity of Arizona

ArkansasAgricultural, Mechanical and

Normal CollegeArkansas A & M CollegeArkansas CollegeArkansas State CollegeArkansas State Teachers CollegeCollege of the OzarksHarding CollegeHenderson State Teachers CollegeHendrix CollegeJohn Brown UniversityUniversity of Arkansas

CaliforniaChapman CollegeChico State CollegeClaremont Men's CollegeCollege of the PacificGeorge Pepperdine CollegeHumboldt State CollegeLong Beach City CollegeLos Angeles State College of

Applied Arts and SciencesMills CollegeOccidental CollegeSt. Mary's College of CaliforniaSt. Patrick's: SeminarySan Diego State. CollegeSan Francisc:o State C011egeSan Jose State CollegeStanford University.University of California (Berkeley)University of California (Davis)University of California (Los Angeles)University of California (Santa Barbara)University of RedlandsUniversity of Southern CaliforniaUpland CollegeWhittier College

Number Institution

332741

1

611

2224

232

1

1

1

442231

1

6

161321

1

1

1

71

1

125

1329

323

718

23

00105

ColoradoAdams State College of ColoradoColorado State UniversityColorado State College of EducationUniversity of ColoradoUniversity of DenverWestern State College of Colorado

ConnecticutAlbertus Magnus CollegeDanbury State CollegeCentral Connecticut State CollegeSouthern Connecticut State CollegeTrinity CollegeUniversity of BridgeportUniversity of ConnecticutWesleyan UniversityWillimantic State CollegeYale University

DelawareUniversity of Delaware

District of ColumbiaCatholic University of AmericaDistrict of Columbia Teachers CollegeGeorge Washington UniversityWashington Missionary College

FloridaBethune-Cookman CollegeFlorida A & M UniversityFlorida State UniversityRollins CollegeStetson UniversityUniversity of FloridaUniversity of Miami

GeorgiaAgnes Scott CollegeAlbany State CollegeEmory UniversityGeorgia Southern CollegeGeorgia State College of Business

AdministrationGeorgia State College for WomenMercer UniversityMorris Brown CollegeUniversity of GeorgiaWesleyan College.

HawaiiUniversity of Hawaii

IdahoUniversity of Idaho

IllinoisAugustana CollegeAurora College

101

Number

31

167

131

1

210

521

541

6

1

21

21

1241

1

65

1

1

5

1

221

81

102

TABLE A.INSTITUTIONS GRANTING BACHELOR'S DEGREES TO THE RESPONDENTS (Continued)

Institution Number Institution Number

Illinois (Continued) Iowa (Continued)Bradley University 3 Luther College 2

Carthage College 3 Morningside College 1

Chicago Teachers College 8 Parsons College 1

Columbia College 1 St. Ambrose College 1

Concordia Teachers College 1 Simpson College 1

De Paul University 4 State University of Iowa 15

Eastern Illinois University 4 University of Dubuque 3

Elmhurst College 1 Wartburg Theological Seminary 1

Garrett Biblical Institute 1 Westmar College 1

George Williams College 2Illinois College 1 KansasIllinois Institute of Technology 2 Bethany College 1

Illinois State Normal University 9 College of Emporia 3

Illinois Wesleyan University 3 Friends University 2

Lewis College of Science and TechnologyLoyola iniversity

1

2

Kansas State College of PittsburgKansas State Teachers College (Emporia)

126

Mac Murray College Kansas State University of AgricultureMillikin University 2 and Applied Science 4

National College of Education 1 McPherson College 4

North Central College 1 Marymount College 1

Northern Baptist Theological Seminary 1 Ottawa University 1

Northern Illinois University 5 Southwestern College 3

Northwestern University 9 Sterling College 1

Quincy College 2 University of Kansas 12

Roosevelt University 3 University of Wichita 5

St. Xavier College 1 Washburn University of Topeka 3

School of the Art Institute of Chicago 1

Southern Illinois University 10 KentuckyUniversity of Chicago 17 Asbury College 1

University of Illinois 28 Berea CollegeWestern Illinois University 1 Eastern Kentucky State College 4

Morehead State College 1

Murray State College 4

Indiana Transylvania College 2

Anderson College and Theological Union College 1

Seminary 2 University of Kentucky 4

Ball State Teachers College 9 University of Louisville 3

DePauw University 4 Villa Madonna College 1

Goshen College 4 Western Kentucky State College 3

Huntington College 2Indiana Central College 1 LouisianaIndiana State Teachers College 13 Leland College 2

Indiana University 16 Louisiana College 1

Manchester College 5 Louisiana Polytechnic Institute 5

Marion College 3 Louisiana State University andOakland City College 1 A & M College 6

Purdue University 4 Northwestern State College of Louisiana 1

University of Notre Dame 6 Southeastern Louisiana College 1

Wabash College 3 Southern University and A & M College 1

Southwestern Louisiana Institute 1

Iowa Tulane University of Louisiana 3

Central College 3 Xavier University of Louisiana 1

Cornell College 5Drake University 5Grinnell College 3 MaineIowa State University of Science Bates College 6

and TechnologyIowa State Teachers College

518

Bowdoin CollegeColby College

24

Loras College 2 University of Maine 2

)

00106'

103

TABLE A.--INSTITUTIONS GRANTING BACHELOR'S DEGREES TO THE RESPONDENTS (Continued)

Institution Number

MarylandCoppin State Teachers CollegeGoucher CollegeJohns Hopkins UniversityMaryland State Teachers College (Towson)Morgan State CollegeSt. Mary's Seminary and UniversityUnited States Naval AcademyUniversity of MarylandWashington CollegeWestern Maryland College

MassachusettsBoston CollegeBoston UniversityClark UniversityEastern Nazarene CollegeEmerson CollegeHarvard UniversityMassachusetts College of ArtMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyMount Holyoke CollegeNew England Conservatory of MusicRadcliffe CollegeSimmons CollegeSmith CollegeSpringfield CollegeState Teachers College (Bridgewater)State Teachers College (Fitchburg)State Teachers College (Lowell)State Teachers College (Salem)State Teachers College (Worcester)Tufts UniversityUniversity of MassachusettsWheelock CollegeWilliams College

MichiganAdrian CollegeAlbion CollegeAlma CollegeCalvin CollegeCentral Michigan UniversityEastern Michigan UniversityEmmanuel Missionary CollegeFerris InstituteGrand Rapids Baptist Theological

Seminary and Bible InstituteHillsdale CollegeHope CollegeKalamazoo CollegeMadonna CollegeMarygrove CollegeMichigan College of Mining and TechnologyMichigan State UniversityNorthern Michigan CollegeOlivet CollegeUniversity of DetroitUniversity of MichiganWayne State UniversityWestern Michigan University

1

1

231

261

2

325

1

32

111

1

21

21

310

83241

721

1

1

21

26

121

2

1

3.

221

1

1

521

1817

(1111

Institution Number

MinnesotaAugsburg College and Theological

Seminary 2Bemidji State College 1

Carleton College 3College of St. Catherine 2Concordia College (Moorhead) 3Gustavus Adolphus College 1

Macalester College 2MacPhail College of Music 2Mankato State College 2St. Cloud State College 5St. John's University 1

St. Mary's College 1

St. Olaf College 4University of Minnesota 32

MississippiDelta State College 2Jackson State College 1

Millsaps College 2Mississippi College 3Mississippi Industrial College 1

Mississippi Southern College 5Mississippi State College 2Mississippi State College for Women 2

MissouriCentral Missouri State College 4Concordia Seminary 1

Conservatory of Music of Kansas City 1

Culver-Stockton College 2Drury College 1

Harris Teachers College 1

Kendrick Seminary 1

Lincoln University 3Missouri Valley College 2Northeast Missouri State Teachers College 9Saint Louis University 2Southeast Missouri State College 5Southwest Missouri State College 10Tarkio College 2University of Kansas City 4University of Missouri 9Washington University 6Westminister College 1

William Jewell College 1

MontanaMontana State College 2Montana State University 6

NebraskaCreighton University 2Doane College 1

Hastings College 4Midland College 1

Municipal University of Omaha 9Nebraska State Teachers College (Kearney) 5Nebraska State Teachers C liege (Peru) 6Nebraska State Teachers College (Wayne) 5

104

TABLE A.--INSTITUTIONS GRANTING BACHELOR'S DEGREES TO THE RESPONDENTS (Continued)

Institution Number

Nebraska (Continued)Nebraska Wesleyan UniversityUniversity of Nebraska

NevadaUniversity of Nevada

New HampshireDartmouth CollegePlymouth Teachers CollegeUniversity of New Hampshire

New JerseyCollege of St. ElizabethDrew UniversityGlassboro State CollegeJersey City State CollegeMontclair State CollegeNewark State CollegeTrenton State CollegePrinceton Theological SeminaryRutgers University, The State

University of New JerseySt. Peter's CollegeSeton Hall UniversityUpsala College

New MexicoNew Mexico State University of Agriculture,

Engineering and Science.New Mexico Highlands UniversityUniversity of New Mexico

New YorkAde 1phi CollegeAlfred UniversityBrooklyn CollegeCanisius CollegeThe City College of the City of New YorkColgate UniversityColumbia UniversityCornell UniversityElmira CollegeFordham UniversityHamilton CollegeHobart and William Smith CollegesHofstra CollegeHoughton CollegeHunter College of the City of New YorkIthaca CollegeJuilliard School of MusicKeuka CollegeKing's CollegeLadycliff CollegeLong Island UniversityManhattan CollegeMarymount CollegeNew School for Social ResearchNew York UniversityNyack Missionary College

320

6

2131

115

141

121

32

3

22

274

611

4110

1

83313741

21

1

10 Ohio2 Antioch College1 Ashland College1 Baldwin-Wallace College

58 Bluffton College1 Bowling Green State University

Institution

New York (Continued)Queens College of the City of New YorkRussell Sage CollegeSt. Bernadine of Siena CollegeSt. Bonaventure UniversitySt. John's UniversitySt. Joseph's Seminary and CollegeSt. Lawrence UniversityState University of New York

College of Education at AlbanyCollege of Education at BuffaloCollege of Education at BrockportCollege of Education at CortlandCollege of Education at FredoniaCollege of Education at GeneseoCollege of Education at New PaltzCollege of Education at OneontaCollege of Education at OswegoCollege of Education at Potsdam

Syracuse UniversityUnion College and UniversityUnion Theological SeminaryUniversity of BuffaloUniversity of RochesterVassar CollegeWagner Lutheran CollegeWells College

North CarolinaAppalachian State Teachers CollegeBarber-Scotia CollegeCatawba CollegeDavidson CollegeDuke UniversityEast Carolina CollegeFayetteville State Teachers CollegeFlora Macdonald CollegeGuilford CollegeHigh Point CollegeSt. Augustine's CollegeUniversity of North CarolinaWake Forest CollegeWestern Carolina CollegeWoman's College of the University

of North Carolina.

North DakotaJamestown CollegeNorth Dakota Agricultural CollegeState Teachers College (Dickinson)State Teachers College (Minot)State Teachers College (Valley City)University of North Dakota

Number

431

361

3

1294461

1

232

2331691

31

6131

841

1

1

1

1

11

82

2

1

631

1

2

3221

3

105TABLE A.--INSTITUTIONS GRANTING BACHELOR'S DEGREES TO THE RESPONDENTS (Continued)

Institution Number Institution NumberOhio (Continued)

Pennsylvania (Continued)Capital University 2 Geneva College1College of Wooster 7 Grove City College 3Denison University 3 Juniata College 6Findlay College 1 Lafayette College 3Kent State University 3 La Salle College1Marietta College

1 Lebanon Valley College 3Miami University 2 Lehigh University1Mount Union College

1 Lincoln UniversityMuskingum College 2 Marywood College 1Oberlin College 2 Pennsylvania State University 17Ohio State University 32 St. Joseph's College1Ohio University 13 St. Vincent College 1Ohio Wesleyan University 2 State Teachers College (Bloomsburg) 1Otterbein College 1 State Teachers College (California) 5Our Lady of Cincinnati College 1 State Teachers College (Clarion) 1University of Akron 1 State Teachers College (East Stroudsburg) 1University of Cincinnati 1 State Teachers College (Edinboro) 2University of Dayton 1 State Teachers College (Indiana) 5University of Toledo 1 State Teachers College (Kutztown) 5Western Reserve University 4 State Teachers College (Lock Haven) 3Wilberforce University 2 State Teachers College (Mansfield) 5Wilmington. College 1 State Teachers College (Millersville) 2Wittenberg College 2 State Teachers College (Shippensburg) 7Xavier University 1 State Teachers College (West Chester) 5Youngstown University 1 Susquehanna University 1

Swarthmore College IOklahomaTemple University 15Bethany Nazarene College 2 University of Pennsylvania 5Central State College 5 University of Pittsburgh 21East Central State College 4 University of Scranton 3Northeastern State College 4 Ursinus College 2Northwestern State College 4 Villa Maria College 1Oklahoma State University 15 Villanova University 2Oklahoma City University I. Washington and Jefferson College 3Southeastern State College 6 Waynesburg College 2Southwestern State College 9 Western Theological Seminary 1University of Oklahoma 12 Westminster College 2

OregonEastern Oregon CollegeLinfield CollegeOregon State CollegePacific Bible CollegeSouthern Oregon CollegeUniversity of OregonUniversity of PortlandWillamette University

Pennsylvania'Allegheny College

'Bryn Mawr College''Bucknell UniversityCarnegie Institute of TechnologyDickinson CollegeDrexel Institute of TechnologyDuquesne UniversitYEastern Baptist CollegeElizabethtown CollegeFranklin and Marshall College

Rhode Island2 Brown University1 University of Rhode Island51 South Carolina1 Allen University

11 Citadel, The Military College of2 South Carolina4 Clemson Agricultural College

Erskine CollegeFurman University

1 Newberry College1 South Carolina State College3 University of South Carolina2 Winthrop College2 Wofford College191

3

GO 1'09

South DakotaDakota Wesleyan UniversityHuron CollegeNorthern State Teachers College

122212

426

106 .

TABLE A.-- INSTITUTIONS GRANTING BACHELOR'S DEGREES TO THE RESPONDENTS (Continued)

Institution

South Dakota (Continued)University of South DakotaYankton College

TennesseeAustin Peay State CollegeCarson-Newman CollegeEast Tennessee State CollegeFisk UniversityGeorge Peabody College for TeachersMaryville CollegeMemphis State UniversityMiddle Tennessee State CollegeMilligan CollegeSouthwestern at MemphisTennessee Agricultural and Industrial

State UniversityTennessee Polytechnic InstituteUnion UniversityUniversity of ChattanoogaUniversity of TennesseeVanderbilt University

TexasAbilene Christian CollegeAgricultural and Mechanical College

of TexasAustin CollegeBaylor UniversityButler CollegeEast Texas Baptist CollegeEast Texas State Teachers CollegeHardin-Simmons UniversityHoward Payne CollegeMary Hardin-Baylor CollegeMc Murry CollegeNorth Texas State CollegePrairie View Agricultural and

Mechanical CollegeRice. InstituteSam Houston State Teachers CollegeSouthern Methodist UniversitySouthwest Texas State Teachers CollegeSouthwestern UniversityStephen F. Austin. State CollegeTexas Christian UniversityTexas College of Arts and IndustriesTexas Technological CollegeTexas Wesleyan CollegeTexas Woman's UniversityTrinity UniversityUniversity of HoustonUniversity of Texas.West Texas State College

Number

UtahBrigham Young UniversityUniversity of UtahUtah State University of Agriculture

and Applied Science

Institution Number

Vermont2 Middlebury College 21 University of Vermont and State

Agricultural College 3

2 Virginia1 Bridgewater College 22 College of William and Mary 52 Emory and Henry College 1

9 Lynchburg College 21 Randolph-Macon College 1

1 University of Richmond 32 University of Virginia 1

3 Virginia Polytechnic Institute 21 Virginia State College 5

3 Washington1 Central Washington College of Education 51 Eastern Washington College of Education 1

4 Gonzaga University 213 Seattle Pacific College 1

4 State College of Washington 8University of Washington 11.

Western Washington College of Education 34 Whitman College 2

West VirginiaBethany College 2Glenville State College 2Marshall College 4

1 Morris Harvey College IState College 3

1 West Virginia Institute of Technology 11 West Virginia State College 1

51

9

11

1

19

2233521

425121

416

3

1216

9

West Virginia University

WisconsinBeloit CollegeCarroll CollegeLawrence CollegeMarquette UniversityNorthland CollegeSt. Norbert CollegeStout State CollegeUniversity of WisconsinViterbo CollegeWisconsin Institute of TechnologyWisconsin State College (Eau Claire)Wisconsin State College (La. Crosse)Wisconsin State College (Oshkosh)Wisconsin State College (Stevens Point)Wisconsin State College (Superior)Wisconsin State College (Whitewater)

WyomingUniversity of Wyoming

Puerto RicoUniversity of Puerto Rico

ForeignNo Response

Total

001 T :0

7

21

1

1

11

426

1

661

71

6

1

61

442542

TABLE B.--INSTITUTIONS GRANTING MASTER'S DEGREES TO THE RESPONDENTS

Institution

AlabamaAlabama State CollegeAuburn UniversityTuskegee InstituteUniversity of Alabama

ArizonaArizona State College (Flagstaff)Arizona State University

ArkansasUniversity of Arkansas

CaliforniaCalifornia State Polytechnic CollegeChico State CollegeClaremont Graduate SchoolCollege of the PacificLong Beach City CollegeMills CollegeOccidental CollegeSacramento State CollegeSan Diego State CollegeSan Francisco State CollegeSan Francisco Theological SeminarySan Jose State CollegeStanford UniversityU. S. Naval Postgraduate SchoolUniversity of California (Berkeley)University of California (Los Angeles)University of California (Davis)University of RedlandsUniversity of San FranciscoUniversity of Southern California

ColoradoAdams State College of ColoradoColorado CollegeColorado State College of EducationColorado State UniversityUniversity of ColoradoUniversity of DenverWestern State College of Colorado

ConnecticutTrinity CollegeUniversity of ConnectiYale University

Number

1

101

8

12

15

107

Institution Number

Florida (Continued)University of FloridaUniversity of Miami

GeorgiaAtlanta UniversityEmory UniversityGeorgia Institute of TechnologyMercer UniversityUniversity of Georgia

136

221

28

HawaiiUniversity of Hawaii 1

1 Idaho2 University of Idaho 394 Illinois1 Bradley University 31 Chicago Conservatory of Music 12 Chicago Lutheran Theological Seminary 1

2 Chicago Teachers College 21 De Paul University 37 Illinois State Normal University 51 Illinois Wesleyan University 11 Lewis College of Science and Technology 1

32 Loyola University 41 Ma Murray College 2

22 Northwestern University 4122 School of the Art Institute of Chicago 1

2 Southern Illinois University 31 University of Chicago 371 University of Illinois 51

52 Western Illinois University 2

11

365

1921.

1

DelawareUniversity of Delaware

District of ColumbiaAmerican UniversityCatholic University' of AmericaGeorge Washington UniversityHoward University

FloridaFlorida State UniversityStetson University

IndianaBall State Teachers CollegeButler UniversityHuntington CollegeIndiana State Teachers CollegeIndiana UniversityManchester CollegePurdue UniversityUniversity of Notre Dame

1 Iowa8 Drake University4 Iowa, college unknown

Iowa State University of Scienceand Technology

Iowa State Teachers CollegeState UniVersity of Iowa

1

1251

KansasFort Hays Kansas State CollegeKansas State College of PittsburgKansas State Teachers College (Emporia)Kansas State University of Agriculture

and Applied ScienceUniversity of KansasUniversity of Wichita

0011:1

761

340

1

71

101

93

49

.298

1

165

108

TABLE B.- ,INSTITUTIONS GRANTING MASTER'S DEGREES TO THE RESPONDENTS (Continued)

Institution Number

KentuckyEastern Kentucky State CollegeSouthern Baptist Theological SeminaryUniversity of KentuckyUniversity of Louisville

LouisianaLouisiana State UniversitySoutheastern Louisiana CollegeTulane University of LouisianaXavier University

MaineBates CollegeUniversity of Maine

MarylandJohns Hopkins UniversityLoyola CollegeMorgan CollegeUniversity of MarylandWestern Maryland College

MassachusettsBoston CollegeBoston UniversityClark UniversityHarvard UniversityMassachusetts College of ArtRadcliffe CollegeSimmons CollegeSmith CollegeSpringfield CollegeState Teachers College (Fitchburg)Tufts UniversityUniversity of MassachusettsWellesley College

MichiganMichigan College of Mining and TechnologyMichigan State UniversityUniversity of DetroitUniversity of MichiganWayne State University .

Western Michigan University

MinnesotaMacalester CollegeMacP hail College, of MusicUniversity of Minnesota

MississippiMississippi CollegeMississippi Southern CollegeMississippi State CollegeUniversity of MississiPpi

Missouri , , ;

Central Missouri State CollegeConservatory of Music of

Kansas City

32

112

111

1

1

24

62192

150

227

1

211

41

21

3

126

36425

1

Institution

Missouri (Continued)Kansas City Art Institute and

School of DesignNortheast Missouri State Teachers

CollegeSaint Louis UniversityUniversity of Kansas CityUniversity of MissouriWashington University

MontanaMontana State University

NebraskaCreighton UniversityMunicipal University of OmahaUniversity of Nebraska

New HampshirePlymouth Teachers CollegeUniversity of New Hampshire

New JerseyMontclair.State College .

Rutgers University, The StateUniversity of New Jersey

Seton Hall University

New MexicoUniversity. of New Mexico

New YorkAlfred UniversityBrooklyn CollegeCanisius CollegeCathedral College of the Immaculate

ConceptionCollege of the City of New YorkColumbia UniversityCornell UniversityFordham UniversityHunter College of the City of New YorkMarymount College.New School for. Social ResearchNew York UniversityNiagara UniversityQueens CollegeRenEisehier Polytechnic InstituteSt. Bontiventure UniversitySt. John's'UniversitySt. Lawrence UniversityState University of New York

College of Education at AlbanyCollege of Education at BuffaloCollege of Education at BrockportCollege of Education at. Fredonia

Syracuse UniversityUnion Theological SeminaryUniversity of BuffaloUniversity of RochesterYeshiva University

2

Number

1

1

43

235

4

1

532

9

173

5

1

54

227

3166

1431

5143

21

1

3

3

1011

1242

1271

TABLE B.--INSTITUTIONS GRANTING MASTER'S DEGREES TO THE RESPONDENTS (Continued)

Institution Number

North CarolinaAgricultural and Technical College

of North CarolinaAppalachian State Teachers CollegeDuke UniversityEast Carolina CollegeMeredith CollegeNorth Carolina College at DurhamUniversity of North CarolinaWake Forest CollegeWoman's College of the University of

North Carolina

North DakotaNorth Dakota Agricultural CollegeState Normal and Industrial CollegeUniversity of North Dakota

12.

641

1

222

2

1

1

6

OhioBowling Green State University 1

College Conservatory of Music (Cincinnati) 1

Kent State University 4Ohio State University 48Ohio University 7Ohio Wesleyan University 1

University of Cincinnati 5University of Toledo 1

Western Reserve University 9

OklahomaOklahoma State UniversityOklahoma City UniversityPhillips UniversityUniversity of Oklahoma

OregonEastern Oregon CollegeLewis and Clark CollegeOregon State CollegeUniversity of OregonUniversity of PortlandWillamette University

PennsylvaniaBryn Mawr CollegeBucknell UniversityCarnegie Institute of TechnologyDuquesne UniversityLehigh UniversityMarywood CollegePennsylvania State UniversitySt. Vincent CollegeTemple UniversityUniversity of PennsylvaniaUniversity of PittsburghUniversity of ScrantonWestern Theological SeminaryWestminster College

161

1

32

1

1

813

1

1

173961

35

261444

1

1

Institution

Rhode IslandBrown UniversityProvidence College

South CarolinaUniversity of South Carolina

South DakotaUniversity of South Dakota

TennesseeAustin Peay State CollegeGeorge Peabody College for TeachersMemphis State UniversityMiddle Tennessee State CollegeUniversity of Tennessee

TexasAgricultural and Mechanical

College of TexasBaylor UniversityEast Texas State Teachers CollegeNorth Texas State CollegePrairie View Agricultural and

Mechanical CollegeSam Houston State Teachers CollegeSouthern Methodist UniversitySouthwest Texas State Teachers CollegeSouthwestern UniversitySul Ross State CollegeTexas Christian UniversityTexas College of Arts and IndustriesTexas Technological CollegeTexas Woman's UniversityTrinity UniversityUniversity of HoustonUniversity of TexasWest Texas State College

UtahBrigham Young UniversityUniversity of UtahUtah State University of Agriculture

and Applied Science

VermontMiddlebury CollegeUniversity of Vermont

VirginiaCollege of William and MaryUniversity of RichmondUniversity of VirginiaRadford CollegeVirginia State College

113

109

Number

31

4

9

1

371

1

19

683

17

21

421

1

334529

323

7

32

43322

110

TABLE B.--INSTITUTIONS GRANTING MASTER'S DEGREES TO THE RESPONDENTS (Continued)

Institution

WashingtonCentral Washington College of

EducationGonzaga UniversityState College of WashingtonUniversity of Washington

West VirginiaMarshall CollegeWest Virginia University

Number

21

89

210

Institution

WisconsinMarquette UniversityStout State CollegeUniversity of Wisconsin

WyomingUniversity of Wyoming

ForeignNo Response (or degree)

Total

Number

22

49

6

24

86

2542

60 114p. · 2013. 10. 24. · 25. Educational Levels of Spouses. 20. 26. Academic Majors of Spouses...

Documents

Transcript of 60 114p. · 2013. 10. 24. · 25. Educational Levels of Spouses. 20. 26. Academic Majors of Spouses...